Sofia Zoo v Orszagos Kornyezetvedelmi, Termeszetvedelmi es Vizugyi Fofelugyeloseg: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of species of wild fauna and flora – Regulation (EC) No 338/97 – Article 11 – Invalidity of an import permit restricted to the specimens of animals actually affected by the ground of invalidity

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P
C-532/13, [2014] EUECJ C-532/13
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 338/97
European

Animals

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.536456

Dodsworth v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 8 Nov 2010

The defendant effectively sought to appeal against his conviction on his own guilty plea to possession of wild bird eggs. They had been collected before possession itself was made an offence, and he had received them before the 2004 Act, after which only the person originally collecting an egg could lawfully possess it. He said that he had entered a plea only on the basis of incorrect legal advice. He now wished to argue that the 2004 Regulations were invalid becaue the necessary period of consultation had not been undertaken. The defendant had not given the required written notice inder the Rules, and the application was after six months against a limit of three weeks.
Held: The case based upon lack of consultation was now accepted to be hopeless, and nor were the 2004 Regulations ultra vires.

Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 3435 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Birds Act 1954 1, Protection of Birds Act 1967, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (England and Wales Amendments) Regulations 2004, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142, Criminal Procedure Rules 37.9
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEshugbayi Eleko v Office Administering the Government of Nigeria HL 24-Mar-1931
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: Lord Atkin said that in a habeas corpus case, ‘no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on condition that he can support the legality . .
CitedAnsar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others CA 9-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged a decision of the chairman of the Employment tribunal not to recuse himself on a later hearing after the claimant had previously made allegations of bias and improper conduct against him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.427934

Welsh v Stokes and Another: CA 27 Jul 2007

The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Held: The appeal failed on either account. The judge had directed himself properly in his consideration of the weight to be accorded to the hearsay evidence, and had had regard to each of the factors in section 4(2) of the 1995 Act. As regards knowledge under section 2(b) under the 1971 Act: ‘I do not see why a keeper’s knowledge that a horse has the characteristic of normally behaving in a certain way in particular circumstances cannot be established by showing that the keeper knows that horses as a species normally behave in that way in those circumstances . . It is a general characteristic of horses to bolt in the particular circumstances of the facts of Mirvahedy, or to rear in the particular circumstances of the present case. It makes no sense to require a keeper, if aware of that general characteristic, to have some additional and more particular knowledge.’

Dyson, Thomas, Richards LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 796, [2008] 1 All ER 921, [2008] 1 WLR 1224, [2007] PIQR P27, (2007) 151 SJLB 1020, [2007] PIQR P27
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2(2), Civil Evidence Act 1995 1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe ‘Ferdinand Retzlaff’ 1971
The plaintiff shipowners claimed damages for detention following a collision with the defendants’ ship. There was an issue as to how long the ship repairs would have taken if they had been done at Bremen. The defendants adduced evidence on this . .
CitedThe ‘Kilmun’ 1988
Although the giving of evidence by way of statements under the Civil Evidence Act 1968 was convenient, ‘it is obvious that it is not a satisfactory way of resolving disputed issues of fact’. . .
CitedCummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .
CitedPolanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
CitedBreeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .

Cited by:
CitedFreeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Animals

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.258427

Mirvahedy v Henley and another: HL 20 Mar 2003

The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular circumstances’, these being some sort of fright or other external stimulus. Section 2 places all animals into one of two categories by their species. Animals either belong to a dangerous species, or they do not. A keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused by his animal dependant upon the category. A dangerous species must meet two requirements, a) that it is not commonly domesticated here and b) that fully grown animals ‘normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe’.
Lord Nicholls: ‘Take a large and heavy domestic animal such as a mature cow. There is a real risk that if a cow happens to stumble and fall onto someone, any damage suffered will be severe. This would satisfy requirement (a). . . But a cow’s dangerousness in this regard may not fall within requirement (b). This dangerousness is due to a characteristic normally found in all cows at all times. The dangerousness results from their very size and weight. It is not due to a characteristic not normally found in cows ‘except at particular times or in particular circumstances.”

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Nicholls
Times 24-Mar-2003, [2003] UKHL 16, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 2 AC 491, [2003] RTR 26, [2003] PIQR P25, [2003] NPC 38, [2003] 2 WLR 882, [2003] 2 All ER 401
House of Lords, Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2 6(2) 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
CitedBreeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .
CitedCummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Cited by:
CitedClark v Bowlt CA 26-Jun-2006
A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if . .
CitedWelsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
CitedFreeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179981

Morge, Regina (on The Application of) v Hampshire County Council: CA 10 Jun 2010

Over time, an abandoned railway line had become a habitat for local wildlife. The claimant now objected to the grant of planning permission for a light railway.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. For an act to fall within 12(1)(b) of the Directive so as to be a Deliberate Disturbance, the act complained of had to be directed at the protected species. As from 2009, the effect only of local distributions of the species need be considered. The disturbance need not be significant. When considering an application which ostensibly affected habitat of a species protected under European law or the species itself, an authority must have regard to the Directive’s requirements.

Ward, Hughes, Patten LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 608, [2010] WLR (D) 145, [2010] PTSR 1882, [2010] JPL 1600, [2010] NPC 67
Bailii, WLRD
Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, Council Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ L206, p 7) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCommission v Greece C-103/00 ECJ 30-Jan-2002
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Protection of species.
Advocate General Leger explained article . .
CitedCommission v Spain ECJ 18-May-2006
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Protection of species – Hunting using stopped snares in private hunting . .
CitedCommission v United Kingdom ECJ 20-Oct-2005
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fufil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora.
The respondent had failed properly to transpose the Habitats Directive into . .
CitedWoolley, Regina (On the Application of) v Cheshire East Borough Council Admn 5-Jun-2009
. .
See AlsoMorge v Hampshire County Council CA 28-Jan-2010
. .
At First InstanceMorge v Hampshire County Council Admn 17-Nov-2009
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMorge v Hampshire County Council SC 19-Jan-2011
The claimants had challenged the allocation of a former railwy line to become a rapid bus service, saying that the Council had failed properly to take account of the Habitats Directive. The Supreme Court was asked as to the extent of doisturbance to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Animals, European

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.416600

Cresswell v Sirl: CA 1948

The defendant shot and killed the plaintiff’s dog. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass to property, the property being the dog. The defence was that the defendant was justified in killing the dog because it was threatening his sheep.
Held: The principle enunciated in Cope was of general application to all justifications for all acts of trespass.

Scott LJ
[1948] 1 KB 241
Citing:
ExplainedCope v Sharpe (No 2) CA 1912
The court considered defences to assault; whether the defendant was justified in doing certain acts of trespass on the plaintiff’s land for the purpose of preventing heath fire and consequent loss and damage to the property of the defendant’s . .

Cited by:
CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
CitedAshley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Animals

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.244748

Partridge v Crittenden: QBD 1968

The defendant advertised for sale ‘Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens, 25s each’. It would be an offence unlawfully to offer a wild live bird for sale.
Held: The advert was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale, and he was not guilty.

[1968] 2 All ER 421, [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Protection of Birds Act 1954 6(1) Sch 4
England and Wales

Contract, Animals, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.252547

Freeman v Higher Park Farm: CA 30 Oct 2008

The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a very experienced rider. A horse was a domesticated animal within the 1971 Act, and therefore the claimant had to show the presence of characteristics which would not normally be present, and that these were known to the defendant.
Held: The judge should have asked whether the injury likely to result from a fall was severe. It will be. However the claimant had not established that a propensity to buck was abnormal in a horse, and therefore her claim failed. The claimant was informed of the characteristic, and went ahead nonetheless and was therefore a volunteer and could not claim in negligence.

Tuckey LJ, Smith LJ, Etherton LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1185, [2009] PIQR P6
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
CitedClark v Bowlt CA 26-Jun-2006
A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if . .
CitedWelsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
CitedCummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Animals, Negligence

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.277358

Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 24 Apr 2012

The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA conducting a private prosecution was not a ‘prosecutor’ able to take the benefit of section 31 of the 2006 Act. She argued that the power under section 31 of the 2006 Act to certify conclusively for the purposes of limitation when matters came to the prosecutor’s knowledge was a power that was restricted to state prosecutors and not to private prosecutors.
Held: After a review of the provisions of the Act, the power was a power available to all prosecutors.
The phrase ‘the prosecutor’ in section 31 of the 2006 Act is not limited to prosecutors who prosecute pursuant to a power conferred by some statutory provision but applies to anyone who initiates a prosecution under the Act. The absence of a remedy by way of judicial review against a private prosecutor was not a basis to conclude that section 31 was to be interpreted so as to exclude private prosecutors from its ambit. The magistrates’ court in which a prosecution is brought can investigate whether or not the proceedings have been brought within the time limit specified in section 31 of the Act and it can also investigate whether any certificate issued under section 31(2) should be treated as conclusive of the facts stated therein. Once an appropriate procedure exists for contending that the prosecutor has not brought proceedings within time or that the certificate issued under section 31(2) should not be treated as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein the absence of a remedy by way of judicial review loses much of its significance.

Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4 31, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(10
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKerr v John Mottram Ltd ChD 1940
The court considered an application by a shareholder of a company to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of shares that he claimed were offered to him at a meeting of the company. The minutes of the company meeting did not support the . .
CitedRegina v Haringey Magistrates’ Court ex parte Amvrosiou Admn 13-Jun-1996
When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in . .
CitedTerra Woningen BV v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-1996
A court had considered itself bound by a decision of the Provincial Executive within the Netherlands adverse to the applicant company.
Held: That was in breach of article 6(1). There was not access to a tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
CitedBurwell v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-May-2009
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier . .

Cited by:
AppliedBrowning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
CitedVirgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452904

Whippey v Jones: CA 8 Apr 2009

The claimant was running along a river embankment. A large dog owned by the appellant, taking it for a walk, was off the leash. It ran out at the claimant who broke his ankle falling into the river. The defendant appealed against a finding that he had been negligent.
Held: The dog owner’s appeal was allowed. The damage caused was found by the judge only to be a possibility if the dog was released in these circumstances, but liability should only have been found if such an injury was likely.

Waller, Rimer, Aikens LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 452
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedGlasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
CitedBolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Animals

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.341244

Commission v Italy: ECJ 22 May 2014

ECJ Judgment – Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 1999/74/EC – Articles 3 and 5, paragraph 2 – Prohibition of rearing laying hens in unenriched cages – Breeding laying hens in cages do not comply with requirements arising under this Directive

Safjan, P
C-339/13, [2014] EUECJ C-339/13
Bailii
Directive 1999/74/EC
European

Animals, Agriculture

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.525831

MacDonald v Animal Plant and Health Agency: QBD 29 Jul 2021

Alpaca Destruction order was lawful and Fair

Appeal by way of case stated against the decision of District Judge (Magistrates Court) Layton on 4 May 2021 sitting at Bristol Magistrates Court to grant a warrant to the respondent to enter a farm in Wooton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, and remove and slaughter an alpaca-nevalea named Geronimo owned by the appellant. The appellant suggested that the test result for bovine tuberculosis was a false positive.
Held: The finding by the Administrative court was binding on the District Judge: ‘a decision of a higher court between essentially the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter and issues is binding on those parties in all its conclusions on those issues, whether they be factual or legal.’ The DJ had considered the evidence said to be new, and maintained the decision. That was not itself a perverse decision. Nor was the decision an unjustified interference or infringement of the claimant’s human rights. Nothing said by the claimant had been overlooked or not given a fair hearing. Her further and late evidence had been considered, and the SS had been free to refuse to allow further tests which need go no further to show the animal’s status.

Mr Justice Griffiths
[2021] EWHC 2325 (QB)
Bailii
Animal Healt Act 1981 32(1) 62A
England and Wales

Animals, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.666701

PY, Regina v: CACD 22 Jan 2019

Police ‘lawful use’ of dog must be police work

The prosecutor wished to appeal from the acquittal of a police officer, whose police dog, while being exercised, attacked a runner causing injury. The judge had accepted the defence, since the dog required exercise, the officer was using the dog for a lawful purpose with the appropriate defence under section 10(3) of the 1991 Act to a charge of allowing it to be dangerously out of control. The defendant objected that the prosecutor had used email to notify his acquittal agreement to the court.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
The email notification was effective: ‘Section 58(4) requires the prosecution to inform the court that it intends to appeal (or request an adjournment and subsequently inform the court following the adjournment); and section 58(8) requires the prosecution at the same time or before it informs the court that it intends to appeal, also to inform the court of its acquittal agreement. Those two subsections contemplate the court potentially being informed of something at three different times: (a) following the ruling, of the intention to appeal; (b) following the adjournment, of the intention to appeal; and (c) at the same time or before either of those events, of the acquittal undertaking. Additionally, subsection (4) contemplates that the prosecution might make a request for an adjournment to consider whether to appeal . . Section 58 of the 2003 Act does not explicitly specify any mechanism for informing the court (or requesting an adjournment). Does it implicitly require each of the steps we have identified to be taken orally in court? . . Our conclusion is that it does not.’
‘The material words of section 10(3), namely ‘do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown’ imports four concepts. First, of the dog whose behaviour is under scrutiny; secondly, whether that dog was being used at the time; thirdly, whether that use was for a lawful purpose; and fourthly, whether that use was by a police constable (or other Crown servant). The broad context in which these concepts fall to be interpreted is the statutory purpose of section 3 of the 1991 Act. That is to provide protection to the public from dogs which are dangerously out of control. The provision is one of strict liability. Criminal liability does not depend upon proof of any fault, negligence or even an ability to avoid the statutory harm. For that reason, although the respondent emphasises that the dog, who was exercised regularly off the lead, had never behaved in this way before and always previously responded to commands, those circumstances provide no defence.
The interpretation of the exemption should not undermine the statutory purpose by giving it an extravagant meaning.’

Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ,Cheema-Grubb, Goose JJ
[2019] EWCA Crim 17, [2019] WLR(D) 38
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003 58(8), Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3, Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 38
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLSA, Regina v CACD 16-May-2008
(Courts-Martial Appeals Court) The defendant had faced road traffic offence charges, but the court had discharged the case using the Forest of Dean case. The prosecutor sought to appeal but failed to give the undertaking with regard to taking no . .
CitedNT, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse. The prosecution had failed give the undertaking necessary on lodging the appeal to the court against whose ruling it wanted to appeal, that it agreed that the defendant should be . .
CitedRegina v F CACD 14-Mar-2013
The crown sought leave to appeal against a terminating ruling. The defendant was accused of rape and sexual assault against his sister, profoundly deaf and with learning difficulties. The judge had found the victim to not be competent to give . .
CitedThe Knightland Foundation, Regina v CACD 26-Jul-2018
The court considered the practice on the giving of the acquittal undertaking. Hallett LJ said that it would be best practice to give the information in open court because: (a) that enables the judge to keep control over the proceedings, including . .
CitedMerseyside Police Authority v Police Medical Appeal Board and others Admn 23-Jan-2009
Two police officers had been granted additional retirement annuities on the basis that they had been injured in the execution of their duty. The chief constable denied this. A police officer who was on annual leave was injured whilst exercising the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Animals, Police

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.633287

Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be left alone to pursue their personal affairs and live as they chose. Hunting was a very public activity and a ban did not infringe article 8. As to the complaints under European law, the matter was not acte clair, and if persued the matter would have to be referred to the ECJ. The 2004 Act was the latest in a long line of Acts restricting animal cruelty, the making of which was a matter of moral judgement by Parliament.
Lord Rodger interpreted article 8 as protecting from arbitrary interference many activities which a person chooses to pursue in his private life for enjoyment, and excluded hunting from protection because it was a public spectacle.
Lord Bingham observed: ‘There are of course many . . who do not consider that there is a pressing (or any) social need for the ban imposed by the Act. But after an intense debate a majority of the country’s democratically elected representatives decided otherwise. It is of course true that the existence of duly enacted legislation does not conclude the issue . . Here we are dealing with a law which is very recent and must . . be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation. The degree of respect to be shown to the considered judgment of a democratic assembly will vary according to the subject matter and the circumstances. But the present case seems to me pre-eminently one in which respect should be shown to what the House of Commons decided. The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.’
Lord Hope said: ’60 As Lord Bingham of Cornhill said in R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 AC 484, para 13, expressions such as ‘ambit’ are not precise and exact in their meaning. As he put it ‘They denote a situation in which a substantive Convention right is not violated, but in which a personal interest close to the core of such a right is infringed.’ That will be so if, for example, the state, having set up an institution such as a school or other educational establishment in unilingual regions, takes discriminatory measures within the meaning of art 14 read with the right to education in art 2 of the First Protocol which are based on differences in the language of children attending these schools: see Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252, para 32. Clift’s case provides another example closer to home. It was held that a scheme which had been set up by legislation which gave the right of early release of prisoners fell within the ambit of the right to liberty in art 5 of the Convention. Differential treatment of prisoners otherwise than on the merits gave rise to a potential complaint of discrimination under art 14.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2007] UKHL 52, Times 29-Nov-2007, [2007] 3 WLR 922, [2008] HRLR 10, [2008] Eu LR 359, [2008] UKHRR 1, [2008] 2 All ER 95, [2008] 1 AC 719
Bailii
Hunting Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceCountryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
Appeal FromCountryside Alliance and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General Another, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 23-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Act under human rights law and on European law grounds. A variety of effects of the Act were alleged. It was said that it would prevent landowners enjoying their own land, and that the Act . .
CitedG and E v Norway ECHR 3-Oct-1983
The court considered the protection to be given to native peoples such as the Saami of Northern Norway. . .
CitedWhaley and Another v Lord Advocate HL 28-Nov-2007
The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional . .
CitedNiemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
CitedGiacomelli v Italy ECHR 2-Nov-2006
A home will usually be the place, the physically defined area, where private and family life develops and that the individual has a right to the quiet enjoyment of that area. . .
CitedChassagnou and Others v France ECHR 29-Apr-1999
A law permitted local authorities to oblige landowners to transfer hunting rights over private land to approved hunting associations. The landowners could not prevent hunting on their property. Landowners so affected were made members automatically . .
CitedCountryside Alliance and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General Another, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 23-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Act under human rights law and on European law grounds. A variety of effects of the Act were alleged. It was said that it would prevent landowners enjoying their own land, and that the Act . .
CitedA v The Scottish Ministers PC 15-Oct-2001
(Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
CitedPretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
CitedRegina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
CitedLondon Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
CitedRassemblement Jurassien Unite Jurassienne v Switzerland ECHR 10-Oct-1979
(Commission) The right to freedom of expression is one of the foundations of a democratic society. The subjection of meetings in public thoroughfares to an authorisation procedure did not normally encroach upon the essence of the right. The concern . .
CitedStec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2006
(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination.
Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences . .
CitedRelating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
CitedClift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants were former serving prisoners who complained that the early release provisions discriminated against them unjustifiably. Each was subject to a deportation requirement, and said that in their cases the control on the time for their . .
CitedStec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2006
(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination.
Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedKonkama v Sweden ECHR 25-Nov-1996
Admissibility decision. The right to fish or hunt is a civil right within the meaning of article 6. . .
CitedKjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .

Cited by:
CitedOB v Aventis Pasteur SA HL 11-Jun-2008
The claimant had been vaccinated with a HIB vaccine. He was severely injured and it was said that the vaccine was the cause, and a claim made under the 1987 Act. Originally the claim was made against a UK company, but it should have been against . .
CitedG, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Admn 20-May-2008
The applicants were detained at Rampton. The form of detention denied the access to space in which they would be able to smoke cigarettes to comply with the law.
Held: The claim failed. The legislative objectives were sufficiently serious to . .
CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another QBD 29-Oct-2008
The applicant suffered mutiple sclerosis and considered that she might wish to go abroad to end her life. She asked the court to make more clear the guidance provided by the Director as to whether her partner might be prosecuted under section 2(1) . .
CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 29-Oct-2008
The applicant said that the defendant had unlawfully failed to provide detailed guidance under section 10 of the 1985 Act, on the circumstances under which a prosecution might lie of a person performing acts which might assist another to commit . .
CitedWright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been provisionally listed as ‘people considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults’ which meant that they could no longer work, but they said they were given no effective and speedy opportunity to object to the listing. . .
CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and others CA 19-Feb-2009
The claimant suffered a debilitating terminal disease. She anticipated going to commit suicide at a clinic in Switzerland, and wanted first a clear policy so that her husband who might accompany her would know whether he might be prosecuted under . .
CitedN, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health; Regina (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust CA 24-Jul-2009
The claimants appealed against the imposition on them of smoking bans while they were compulsorily detained at Rampton Hospital. They said that other persons detained for example in prisons had been exempted fully.
Held: The right or freedom . .
CitedETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
CitedBull and Bull v Hall and Preddy CA 10-Feb-2012
The appellants owned a guesthouse. They appealed from being found in breach of the Regulations. They had declined to honour a booking by the respondents of a room upon learning that they were a homosexual couple. The appellants had said that they . .
CitedCatt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
CitedNicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
CitedH v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
CitedSG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
CitedSteinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education CA 21-Feb-2017
Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate
The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit . .
CitedMcCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Animals, Crime, European

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.261602

Interboves GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture): ECJ 9 Oct 2008

ECJ Directive 91/628/EEC Export refunds Protection of animals during transport – Transport of bovine animals by sea between two geographical points of the Community – Vehicle loaded onto a vessel without unloading the animals 12 hour rest period Obligation.

C-277/06, [2008] EUECJ C-277/06
Bailii
European

Animals

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.276794

Clark v Bowlt: CA 26 Jun 2006

A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if it can, the trial judge had failed to identify either the particular times of the particular circumstances when this characteristic manifested itself,

Lord Phillips MR
[2006] EWCA Civ 978
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .

Cited by:
CitedFreeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.243293

Badger Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 29 Aug 2014

The respondent had carried out the first round of a badger cull, subject to supervision and reporting by an independent expert panel. Promoises were made, the claimant said, that the panel’s role would be maintained for any subsequent round. The panel’s report was critical. The Trust now sought judicial review of a decision that a second round would be without such review, claiming breach of a legitimate expectation.
Held: The request was rejected. Any promise of the contiued involvement of the expert panel was not clear enough to found a legitimate expectation, and indeed the original olicy envisaged a lesser involvement than had occurred, and a promise involvement of the sort asserted would be an improper removal of control of policy making from the executive. The Independent Expert Panel itself had originally only envisaged involvement to the extent already completed.

Kenneth Parker J
[2014] EWHC 2909 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
CitedThe Association of British Civilian Internees – Far Eastern Region (ABCIFER) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 3-Apr-2003
The association sought a judicial review of a decision not to pay compensation in respect of their or their parents or grandparents’ internment by the Japanese in the Second World War. Payment was not made because those interned were not born in . .
CitedPaponette and Others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 13-Dec-2010
The appellants operated taxis in Port-of-Spain. The Minister proposed changes, but when challenged provided re-assurances. After the changes, the re-assurances were not satisfied. The claimants sought judicial review asserting that a legitimate . .
CitedPatel, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council CA 27-Mar-2013
The claimant had qualified as a doctor in St Kitts and Nevis. He appealed against refusal of his challenge to the decision of the respondent not to recognise his qualification. He relied upon a statement upon which he had relied.
Held: Whether . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State ex parte Khan CA 4-Apr-1984
The Secretary of State had refused an entry clearance for a child to be allowed into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption by the applicant, but had done so upon grounds nowhere mentioned in a Home Office circular letter apparently setting . .
CitedRegina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
CitedBhatt Murphy (a firm), Regina (on the application of) v The Independent Assessor CA 9-Jul-2008
The appellants each challenged alterations to the scheme for compensation of the victims of miscarriages of justice.
Held: Laws LJ emphasised the special nature of the promise or practice which was necessary to give rise to a substantive . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Administrative, Judicial Review, News

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536295

Zuchtvieh-Export v Stadt Kempten: ECJ 11 Sep 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Preliminary reference – Agriculture – Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Protection of animals during transport – Transport of animals from one Member State to a third country – Article 14, paragraph 1 – Check the logbook to make by the competent authority of the place before starting the long journeys – Annex I, Chapter V – Provisions regarding maintenance of water and feed as well as journey times and rest – Applicability of these provisions in Regarding the part of the transport takes place outside the territory of the Union

Bot AG
C-424/13, [2014] EUECJ C-424/13 – O, [2015] EUECJ C-424/13
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

European, Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536727

Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd: CA 1 May 2020

Only Limited Ownership of pond fish

BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or animals domitae naturae.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘ the judge was wrong to find that BDS’s qualified property in the fish survived the transfer to CWF of the land on which the lakes stood. Given its investment in the fishery, that is indeed a hard result for BDS, but it is not a consequence of the law relating to wild animals but of the circumstances in which its land came to be sold by receivers. Had there been a normal commercial sale, BDS could have demanded payment for the fish, as indeed it did in the negotiations with CWF before matters were taken out of its hands. But with the sale, possession of the fish was lost and its qualified property rights came to an end.’
‘captive wild creatures are considered to be qualified property per industriam, even though they are also on land presumably owned by the same person. As explained by Sir Timothy at paragraph 25 above, the two rights are not symmetrical. One is an exclusive right to reduce the animal into possession by virtue of land ownership, the other an exclusive right to possession of the animal by virtue of some effort.’

Peter Jackson, Rose LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2020] EWCA Civ 578, [2020] WLR(D) 265
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd ChD 24-Jul-2019
Dispute as to ownership of fish in fishing lake on its sale, and whether solar panels were fixtures. The fish had been purchased for the fishery. Small fish might escape through meshes, but larger fish were captive. The contract of sale of the land . .
CitedGreyes Case 1593
Grey brought an action of trespasse against Bartholmew : the case was : A man did purchase divers fishes, viz. carpes, tenches, trouts, Be. arid put them into his pond for store, and then died.
The question was, whether the heire or the . .
CitedRex v Steer 1704
A quantity of carp was stolen from a private pond.
Held: the fish were the property of the owner of the pond. The fish could not swim away from an enclosed pond and thereby become lost. . .
CitedBlades v Higgs and Another 8-Jun-1861
Wild animals, whilst living, though they were the property of the owner of the soil on which they were living, were not his personal chattels. Animals ferae naturae killed by a trespasser became the property of the landowner.
Lord Chelmsford . .
CitedRegina v Townley 1871
Bovill CJ made it clear that in animals ferae naturae, there was no absolute property. There was only a special or qualified property. . .
CitedThe Attorney General for The Provinces British Columbia v The Attorney General for The Dominion of Canada and Another PC 2-Dec-1913
Canada – Lord Haldane set out the principles under which fishery rights might be acquired by prescription.
Fish stocks are a public resource, and there is no property in fish until they are caught. The right to fish in tidal waters or in the . .
CitedHesketh v Willis Cruisers Ltd CA 1968
Where the fishing rights have not been severed from the lake or river bed, they simply pass automatically as part of the land; and there is no need for them to be separately transferred to the purchaser of the land . .
CitedCresswell and Another v Director Of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants opposed the actions of DEFRA in trapping and then killing badgers. They were accused of criminal damage to the traps. They asserted a lawful excuse in seeking to release the badgers. While a wild animal was alive, there was no . .
CitedBuckle v Holmes KBD 1925
The defendant’s cat had killed what were said to be valuable racing and homing pigeons and some bantams of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for damages for the loss, but was unable to prove that the defendant knew the cat to have any specially . .
MentionedBuckle v Holmes CA 1926
. .
CitedYoung v Hichens 21-Nov-1844
The plaintiff was fishing in the sea for pilchards and had drawn his net around a large number of fish, but at a moment when his net remained open by some seven fathoms and he was about to close it, the defendant rowed up to the opening of the net . .
CitedEwart v Graham HL 1859
The parties disputed the scope and extent of a reservation to the respondent’s father in an Act of Parliament of ‘all rights of hunting, shooting, fishing and fowling’ over certain specified land which had been owned by the respondent’s father and . .
CitedFitzgerald v Firbank 1897
The owner of a right of fishing asserted a cause of action without proof of special damage against someone who had polluted the river in which the right was exercised.
Held: A right of fishing was of such a nature that a person who enjoyed it . .
CitedThe Ship Frederick Gerring Jr v The Queen 1-May-1897
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court was asked whether a vessel was forfeit to the Crown on the grounds that it had been used for fishing within a three mile limit from the Canadian coast. The fishing process had started outside the limit. A large . .
CitedHamps v Darby CA 1948
The court was asked as to a civil action concerning the depredations of homing pigeons on crops.
Evershed LJ quoted from Holdsworth’s History of English Law about keeping a singing bird which is of value even though not in monetary terms: ‘For . .
CitedKearry v Pattinson CA 1939
A claim was made for damages by the plaintiff bee-keeper, against the defendant, his neighbour. The plaintiff’s bees swarmed and settled in the garden of the defendant. He sought to recover his bees but the neighbour initially refused to give the . .
CitedPurcell v Minister for Finance 1939
(Supreme Court of Ireland) Legislation providing for compensation for malicious injury causing actual damage to property, payable out of public funds. Mr Purcell caught eels in a river, not being the owner of the land over which the river ran nor, . .
CitedPierson v Post CA 1805
Post and his hounds were pursuing a fox on waste ground in Long Island when Pierson intercepted and killed it. Post sued, claiming ownership of the fox, and won at trial. The court was asked: ‘Whether a person who, with his own hounds, starts and . .
CitedNational Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Torts – Other

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.650616

Smouha v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 14 Apr 2015

FTTTx EXCISE – seizure of crocodile skin handbag – failure to obtain CITES import permit – Appellant advised by AHVLA that goods fell within Appendix 1 of CITES – retrospective permit applied for but refused – forfeiture of handbag – Border Force refusal to restore upheld on review – handbag in fact within Appendix II of CITES – further application for retrospective permit – further refusal by AHVLA – Border Force review decision confirmed – whether discretion fettered – held, yes – whether refusal to restore Wednesbury unreasonable – held, yes because of failure to take into account all relevant factors – whether decision proportionate under EU law and the Convention – held, no – appeal allowed and Directions given

[2015] UKFTT 147 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Animals

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.546591

Cummings v Grainger: CA 1977

An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon the trespasser defence provided by section 5. The dog had characteristics not normally found in Alsatian dogs except in circumstances where they are used as guard dogs. These were ‘particular circumstances’ within section 2(2)(b). Such an animal is behaving dangerously but it is doing so in a manner characteristic of its species in the circumstances.
Lord Denning MR: ‘This is a case of a barmaid who was badly bitten by a big dog’

Lord Denning MR, Ormrod and Bridge LJJ
[1977] QB 397
Animals Act 1971 2 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Dictum appliedCurtis v Betts CA 1990
The defendant owned a bull mastiff dog. It was known to react fiercely when protecting its territory. The plaintiff, a child, had known the dog since it was a puppy, and approached as the dog was about to be put into a car. The dog bit his face . .
CitedWelsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
CitedFreeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.180024

North Wales Police v Anglesey Justices: CA 16 Jul 2008

A dog bit a constable. The defendant said that the police had wrongly begun proceedings as an information, rather than by way of a complaint, and that they were a nullity.
Held: Rule 2.1 of the 1981 Rules is expressed in terms which show that the use of statutory forms is not mandatory, and embody an untechnical approach. The initiating document referred to a complaint and not an information, and that was what it was. The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused since the appeal had no merit.
May LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 920
Bailii
Dogs Act 1871 2, Magistrates’ Courts (Forms) Rules 1981 2.1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Hughes 1879
Baron Huddleston said that: ‘objections and defects in the form of procuring the appearance of a party charged will be cured by appearance.’
Hawkins J said: ‘The information, which is in the nature of an indictment, of necessity precedes the . .
CitedRegina v Nottingham Justice, ex parte Brown 1960
Proceedings which were begun incorrectly by the laying of an information rather than a complaint as required were a nullity. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.272241

Triggs v Lester: QBD 20 Jan 1866

A local act for a parish, in which was a large cattle market, enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any drover or other person to conduct or drive through any of the streets in the parish any oxen, sheep, or other cattle, during Sunday.
Held: that a person driving a van with horses, in which were calves being conveyed to the market, was not ‘driving’ or ‘conducting’ cattle within the meaning of the statute.
(1865-1866) LR 1 QB 259, [1866] UKLawRpKQB 4
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.653047

Saunders v Baldy: QBD 11 Nov 1865

The 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 3, forbids, under penalties, the killing or taking certain game during certain intervals of the year; and section 23 imposes penalties on any person taking or killing game, or using a dog or engine for that purpose, not being authorized for want of a certificate.
Held:, that a person using an engine for taking game without a certificate during the forbidden interval, was liable to penalties under the latter section, although he might also be liable to penalties under section 3.
[1865] EngR 725, (1865) 6 B and S 791, (1865) 122 ER 1385, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 14, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 87
Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.281637

Churchward v Studdy: 21 Jun 1811

The plaintiff’s dogs having hunted and caught, on the defendant’s land, a hare started on the land of another, the property is thereby vested in the plaintiff, who may maintain trespass against the defendant for afterwards taking away the hare. And so it would be though the hare, being quite spent, had been caught up by a labourer of the defendant for the benefit of the hunters.
[1811] EngR 384, (1811) 14 East 249, (1811) 104 ER 596
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.339468

May v Burdett: 1846

The court considered the liability of the owner for a bite by his pet monkey.
(1846) 9 QB 101
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRead v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.258602

Purcell v Minister for Finance: 1939

(Supreme Court of Ireland) Legislation providing for compensation for malicious injury causing actual damage to property, payable out of public funds. Mr Purcell caught eels in a river, not being the owner of the land over which the river ran nor, so far as the report discloses, holding any right such as a profit a prendre of fishery. He put the eels into a large wooden box, referred to as a trunk, floating in the river and secured to the bank by chains. He kept the eels there, alive, until there were enough of them to take to the market for sale, a process which Johnston J on the first appeal from the circuit court described as involving acquisition of the eels per industriam. In his absence, a third party destroyed the trunk, thereby releasing the eels from their captivity back into their natural element. A claim for compensation was made for the loss of the eels, which so far as the evidence went had not themselves been injured in any way but certainly ceased to be the subject of any proprietary rights on the part of Mr Purcell when they escaped from captivity.
Held: It was a situation in which animals had been taken or reduced into possession, giving the taker rights arising from the possession, which however lasted only for so long as the possession did. Mr Purcell was able to get at eels in the trunk readily and with ease in order to take them on the next stage of their journey to market. Until the destruction of the trunk he had rights over the eels per industriam, without having had any rights ratione soli.
[1939] IR 115
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.650626

Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 16 Nov 2018

Hickinbottom LJ, Jay J
[2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 706
Bailii, WLRD
Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromHighbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service SC 16-Oct-2020
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.630560

Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service: SC 16 Oct 2020

Lord Reed, President, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows
[2020] UKSC 39, [2020] 1 WLR 4309, [2021] Crim LR 299, [2021] 2 All ER 145, [2021] LLR 56, [2020] PTSR 1767
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHighbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Nov-2018
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.654665

The Badger Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals: Admn 12 Jul 2012

The Badger Trust promoted the conservation and welfare of badgers, their setts and habitat. It challenged the decision of the Defendant to adopt a policy on bovine TB, ‘bTB’, and badger control in England pursuant to which she would authorise Natural England to license groups of farmers and landowners to cull badgers.
Ouseley J
[2012] EWHC 1904 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
England and Wales

Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.551933

James v The Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 19 May 2010

The defendant had pleaded guilty to three charges of causing unnecessary cruelty to animals. She appealed against an order for unpaid community work and the costs of pounds 38,644. The horses had been removed by the Society after a veterinary surgeon said it was necessary under the 2006 Act. The defendant said that the removal was unlawful since the section required the opinion to be certified, but it had been given orally. The issue is one of construction as to whether the word ‘certifies’ means certifies in writing.
Held: Keith J said: The word ‘certifies’ has to be construed, of course, in accordance with its ordinary meaning, subject to the context of the statutory provisions in which it appears. The word connotes a degree of formality, and the proposition that the degree of formality which is necessary is that the certification be in writing is, in my view, supported by section 18(10) of the Act, which provides, so far as is material: ‘A veterinary surgeon may examine and take samples from an animal for the purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate under subsection . . (5) with respect to the animal.’ However: ‘it would, I think, be very surprising if section 18(5) were to be construed in a way which permits a police officer to act so as to put an animal out of its distress before the veterinary surgeon arrives, but does not permit the animal to be relieved of its suffering after the veterinary surgeon arrives, even though the veterinary surgeon thinks that the animal is suffering, but for one reason or another does not put that into writing.’ and ‘ I have concluded that section 18(5) does not require the certification to be in writing, and that the seizure and detention of Mrs James’s horses was not unlawful.’
Keith J
[2011] EWHC 1642 (Admin), (2011) 175 JP 485
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.441397

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA), Regina (on the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 7 Oct 2008

The Society sought judicial review of the 2006 Regulations allowing the last resort killing of poultry by shutting off ventilation so as to lead to hypothermia or organ failure.
Held: The European Directive required appropriate measures to kill animals as soon as possible and, in any event, before they regained consciousness and to not interfere with them until after death. Those were requirements directed to means and not as to the success of such means or a guarantee that death would ensue in every case without more from unconsciousness. The clear objective of the Regulations was to protect public health, and the provision was proportionate to the risks. The objection failed.
Auld J
[2008] EWHC 2321 (Admin), [2009] PTSR 730
Bailii, Times
Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations (SI 2006 No 1200), Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations (SI 1995 No 731), Council Directive 93/119/EC
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.277016

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Chester Crown Court: Admn 17 May 2006

Defendants had been convicted of maltreatment of horses. The crown court had overturned a permanent ban on keeping horses, substituting a limit of keeping 25 horses with a conditional discharge. The prosecutor now appealed.
Held: The court had no power to make the order it had in setting a number of animals. The power to grant a conditional discharge is dependent on its being inexpedient to inflict punishment, and that the power to annex conditions is not at large but is confined to a condition of committing no offence during a specified period. The conditions were quashed and remitted for resentencing.
Sedley LJ, beatson J
[2006] EWHC 1273 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Animals Act 1911 1(1)(a), Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 1(1), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 12(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNash v Birmingham Crown Court Admn 18-Feb-2005
The defendant who had had 75 cats in her home with consequences that they had been not well looked after was convicted of animal cruelty. She had been ‘given a conditional discharge’, one of the conditions being that she could not thereafter look . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.242300

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, Regina (on the Application Of) v Shinton: Admn 30 Jun 2003

The defendant was licensed to set Larson traps to catch magpies. The traps worked by keeping a magpie as a decoy to attract others. The evidence was that the trapped magpie suffered distress and injury because the trap was so small as not to allow it to spread its wings.
Held: The defendant was not liable under the 1981 Act, but in the light of the evidence, was liable under the 1911 Act.
Leveson J
[2003] EWHC 1696 (Admin), Times 23-Jul-2003
Bailii
Protection of Animals Act 1911 1(1)(a), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 8(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedBarnard v Evans 1925
‘causing unnecessary suffering’ under the Act means doing something which it is not reasonably necessary to do and which is not justified. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.185616

Commission v France C-374/98: ECJ 7 Dec 2000

Europa (Judgment) The inventory of areas which are of great importance for the conservation of wild birds, more commonly known under the acronym IBA (Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community), although not legally binding on the Member States concerned, contains scientific evidence making it possible to assess whether a Member State has complied with its obligation to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for conservation of the protected species. It follows from the general scheme of Article 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds that, where a given area fulfils the criteria for classification as a special protection area, it must be made the subject of special conservation measures capable of ensuring, in particular, the survival and reproduction of the bird species mentioned in Annex I to that directive. The text of Article 7 of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora expressly states that Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive apply, in substitution for the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, to the areas classified under Article 4(1) or (2) of the latter directive. It follows that, on a literal interpretation of that passage of Article 7 of Directive 92/43, only areas classified as special protection areas fall under the influence of Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive. The fact that the protection regime under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 applies to areas that have not been classified as special protection areas but should have been so classified does not in itself imply that the protection regime referred to in Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43 replaces the first regime referred to in relation to those areas.
C-374/98, [2000] ECR I-10799, [2000] EUECJ C-374/98
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedBown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 August 2021; Ref: scu.162510

Commission v Cyprus (Failure Of A Member State To Fulfil Obligations): ECJ 15 Mar 2012

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Articles 4(1) and 12(1) – Failure to include Paralimni Lake as a site of Community importance within the time-limit laid down – System of protection for the species Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake)
C-340/10, [2012] EUECJ C-340/10
Bailii
Directive 92/43/EEC
European

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452237

Langton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 9 Aug 2021

Application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s policy document ‘Next steps for the strategy for achieving bovine tuberculosis free status for England – The government’s response to the strategy review, 2018’
The Honourable Mr Justice Griffiths
[2021] EWHC 2199 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.666524

Friend In Petition of Hagan, Friend v The Lord Advocate: SCS 27 Sep 2005

Lady Paton And Lady Smith And Lord Maclean
[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 69, 2006 SC 121
Bailii
Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002
Scotland
Cited by:
Appeal fromWhaley and Another v Lord Advocate HL 28-Nov-2007
The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.230312

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd: SC 24 Jun 2020

SC Kymab Ltd (‘Kymab’) alleges that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents are concerned with biotechnology, and in particular the production of human antibodies using transgenic mice. By the priority date, the potential uses of antibodies (also known as immunoglobulins) for treating human disease had been well recognised, and a number of different antibodies had been developed and approved for such use. The patents describe a technique for making such antibodies.
Regeneron appealed the decision of Henry Carr J that European Patent (UK) No 1 360 287 and its divisional European Patent (UK) No 2 264 163 are invalid. Kymab cross-appealed against the judge’s finding that its various strains of transgenic mice would infringe claims 5 and 6 of the 287 patent and claim 1 of the 163 patent if those patents had not been invalid. Regeneron’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal. Kymab’s cross-appeal was dismissed.
Held: (Lady Black dissenting) Kymab’s appeal was allowed, holding that the patents were invalid.
An inventor must publish enough information to allow a skilled member of the public to make the product: ‘The essence of the bargain between the patentee and the public is that the patentee dedicates the invention to the public by making full disclosure of it, in return for a time-limited monopoly over its use. The benefit afforded to the public is not merely the disclosure, but the ability to ‘work the invention’ after the expiry of the monopoly by the use of the disclosure. Where the invention enables patentees to make a particular product, and they seek a monopoly over the making and exploitation of the product (which is what a product claim does), they must disclose enough in the teaching of the patent to enable the public also to make the product.’
Thus a patent holder only gains a legal protection which is proportional to the technical contribution to the art, and encourages inventors to conduct research for the benefit of society. Regeneron was claiming a monopoly which was far wider than its contribution to the art; its published patents did not enable a skilled person to make mice containing more than a very small section of the human variable region.
Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales
[2020] UKSC 27, UKSC 2018/0131
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20 02 11 am Video, SC 20 02 11 pm Video, SC 20 02 12 am Video, SC 20 02 12 pm Video, SC Facts and History
England and Wales
Citing:
At PatCRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another PatC 1-Feb-2016
The parties disputed the validity of K’s patented mouse. R said that the specification was insufficient to allow reproduction, and that it was therefore incomplete.
Held: The specification was insufficient, and the patents invalid. The issue . .
Appeal fromRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another CA 28-Mar-2018
The claimant R now appealed from a finding that its two patents involving transgenic mice were invalid. The ‘in situ replacement’ failed to comply.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Request for leaveRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another CA 23-May-2018
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused. Other post judgment issues – form of order. . .
CitedFerrazzini v Italy ECHR 12-Jul-2001
(Grand Chamber) The court had to decide whether tax proceedings brought by the state against an individual involved the determination of a civil right within the meaning of article 6(1). It was argued by the Government that the existence of an . .
CitedMay and Baker Ltd and others v Boots Pure Drug Company Ltd HL 9-Feb-1950
A beneficial therapeutic effect was said to be of the essence of the claim. The House considered whether in defending the validity of a patent, the patentee might be allowed an application to amend the patent specification. The patentee had not been . .
CitedBiogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
CitedRockwater Ltd v Technip France Sa (Formerly Coflexip Sa), Technip Offshore UK Limited (Formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited) CA 6-Apr-2004
Jacob LJ said that the skilled person who must be enabled to make the product from a patent specification, is not expected to be inventive or even, as is sometimes said, imaginative . .
CitedH Lundbeck A/S v Generics (UK) Ltd and others CA 10-Apr-2008
The court heard an appeal against a finding that a patent for a chemical compound was invalid for insufficiency.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Enough information to ‘work the invention’ meant in order to make the product. . .
CitedActavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not . .
CitedGenerics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S HL 25-Feb-2009
Patent properly granted
The House considered the patentability of a chemical product, citalopram made up of two enantiomers, as opposed to the process of its creation, questioning whether it could be new or was insufficient within the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedKirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.651925

Rafiq v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1997

The court heard an appeal from conviction of an offence under section 3.
Held: The court referred to Bezzina.
Popplewell J dissented from the approach in Bezzina, saying: ‘It seems to me that in order to impose some logic in this case the proper way to approach these cases is to take the view that if there is a bite without a reasonable apprehension immediately before that, the use of the word ‘any occasion’ is sufficient to impose a liability because there are grounds thereafter for reasonable apprehension that it will injury some other person.’
Auld LJ commented: ‘Depending on the circumstances, the time for apprehension, even by the notional reasonable bystander, may be so minimal as for practical purposes to be non-existent. The notion of reasonable apprehension of injury before it occurs in such circumstances, is artificial and the court should strain against adding that unhappy element to an already difficult statutory formulation. It seems to me that Kennedy LJ in that passage was unnecessarily focusing on the injury as if it were a necessary culmination and demonstration of anterior reasonable apprehension of injury. In my view there is no need for such an approach. The act of a dog causing injury, a bite or otherwise, is itself capable of being conduct giving grounds for reasonable apprehension of injury.’
Auld LJ and Popplewell J
[1997] JP 161
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bezzina, Regina v Codling, Regina v Elvin CACD 7-Dec-1993
The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Accordingly, we come to the conclusion . .

Cited by:
CitedGedminintaite, Regina v CACD 15-Feb-2008
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling given by His Honour Judge Gibson as to how he would address the jury in a case of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Rottweiler with no history of aggression attacking passer by.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.652234

Gedminintaite, Regina v: CACD 15 Feb 2008

Application for leave to appeal against a ruling given by His Honour Judge Gibson as to how he would address the jury in a case of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Rottweiler with no history of aggression attacking passer by.
Held: Leave refused: ‘On either the interpretation propounded in Rafiq or that of Kennedy LJ in Bezzina, this dog was dangerously out of control. We are inclined to go further. In any event the definitions section, section 10, is not exclusive. It does not read as a matter of construction, ‘For the purposes of this Act, a dog shall only be regarded as dangerously out of control ….’ and then proceed to the definition. Therefore we feel ourselves entitled to go back to the straightforward words of section 3: ‘If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place ….’ In our judgment, this dog was dangerously out of control in a public place. That was amply evidenced by the way it behaved and the fact that it was not controlled by its handler.’
Keene LJ, Hall HHJ
[2008] EWCA Crim 814, (2008) 172 JP 413
Bailii
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bezzina, Regina v Codling, Regina v Elvin CACD 7-Dec-1993
The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Accordingly, we come to the conclusion . .
CitedRafiq v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1997
The court heard an appeal from conviction of an offence under section 3.
Held: The court referred to Bezzina.
Popplewell J dissented from the approach in Bezzina, saying: ‘It seems to me that in order to impose some logic in this case the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.270589

Regina v Bezzina, Regina v Codling, Regina v Elvin: CACD 7 Dec 1993

The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that the terms of the statute in section 3(1) do have to be read in the way that we indicated at the start of this judgment. In other words, when one encounters the words in section 3(1) — ‘dangerously out of control’ — one applies the meaning which is set out in section 10(3) and that means, in effect, that if a dog is in a public place, if the person accused is shown to be the owner of the dog, if the dog is dangerously out of control in the sense that the dog is shown to be acting in a way that gives grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure anyone, liability follows. Of course, if injury does result then, on the face of it, there must have been, immediately before the injury resulted, grounds for reasonable apprehension that injury would occur.’
Kennedy LJ
Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 07-Dec-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 1057
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1) 3(2)(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCriminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 3-Feb-2014
cica_fttCA0114
The claimant had been riding his cycle. A dog, known to be aggressive, chased him, he swerved ino the path of a car and was severely injured. His claim was rejected by the appellant saying that no crime of violence had been involved. CICA now . .
CitedRafiq v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1997
The court heard an appeal from conviction of an offence under section 3.
Held: The court referred to Bezzina.
Popplewell J dissented from the approach in Bezzina, saying: ‘It seems to me that in order to impose some logic in this case the . .
CitedGedminintaite, Regina v CACD 15-Feb-2008
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling given by His Honour Judge Gibson as to how he would address the jury in a case of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Rottweiler with no history of aggression attacking passer by.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.86129

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another: CA 23 May 2018

Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused. Other post judgment issues – form of order.
[2018] EWCA Civ 1186
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At PatCRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another PatC 1-Feb-2016
The parties disputed the validity of K’s patented mouse. R said that the specification was insufficient to allow reproduction, and that it was therefore incomplete.
Held: The specification was insufficient, and the patents invalid. The issue . .
Main CA JudgmentRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another CA 28-Mar-2018
The claimant R now appealed from a finding that its two patents involving transgenic mice were invalid. The ‘in situ replacement’ failed to comply.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .

Cited by:
Request for leaveRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd SC 24-Jun-2020
SC Kymab Ltd (‘Kymab’) alleges that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.617309

Deane v Clayton: 1817

(1817) 7 Taunt 489
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.181262

Suryananda, Regina (on the Application of) v The Welsh Ministers: Admn 16 Jul 2007

The claimants, trustees of a Hindu temple, sought judicial review of a decision that a bullock in their temple should be slaughtered having positively reacted to a test for bovine tuberculosis bacterium. They said that the animal posed no threat since it was isolated from other anmals and was sacrosanct to them.
Held: The article 9 human rights of the claimants were engaged, and the proposed action would be a gross interference in those rights. It was therefore for the respondent to justify the action by showing a pressing social need. The decision had been reached without sufficient regard to the claimants’ religious freedoms, and would be quashed. The court noted however that a properly reached decision might be the same.
Hickinbottom J
[2007] EWHC 1736 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Health Act 1981 32
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedX v Netherlands ECHR 1962
As a legitimate aim, a Government may rely upon ‘the protection of public . . health’, which includes the health of animals as well as of humans. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
CitedDe Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others PC 30-Jun-1998
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to . .
CitedBegum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
CitedRegina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Eastside Cheese Company (a Firm) and R A Duckett and Co Interested CA 1-Jul-1999
Application for leave to appeal to House of Lords – refused. However ‘on public health issues which require the evaluation of complex scientific evidence, the national court may and should be slow to interfere with a decision which a responsible . .
CitedJewish Liturgical Association Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France ECHR 27-Jun-2000
The applicants, ultra-orthodox jews, challenged the regulation of ritual slaughter in France, which did not satisfy their exacting religious standards.
Held: The applicants’ right to freedom of expression was not limited by the controls on the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.258160

Haynes v Harwood: CA 1935

The plaintiff, a policemen saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.
Held: The horseowner was liable. It was foreseeable that if a horse was let loose in a crowd, somebody, particularly a policeman under a general duty to assist, would attempt to capture it and might be injured in the process. The defendant could not raise a plea of volenti non fit injuria in this case. His action was an errand of mercy, and it was by reason of that activity that he fell within the categories of persons for whom the defendant owed a duty of care.
Greer LJ said: ‘It is not necessary to show that this particular accident and this particular damage were probable; it is sufficient if the accident is of a class that might well be anticipated as one of the reasonable and probable results of a wrongful act’
Greer LJ
[1935] 1 KB 146
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 11-Feb-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedJebson v Ministry of Defence CA 28-Jun-2000
The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip.
Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents . .
CitedMitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police CA 31-May-1991
The defendant policed a football match at which many people died. The plaintiffs, being relatives and friends of the deceased, inter alia suffered nervous shock having seen the events either from within the ground, or from outside or at home on . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.189966

Cutler v United Dairies: CA 1933

A horse pulling one of the defendant’s vans was seen running loose without a driver. It left the roadway onto private land. The driver caught up and called for help. The plaintiff jumped into the field and was injured trying to restrain the horse. There was evidence that the horse had bolted twice before.
Held: Any negligence of the defendants did not contribute to the accident. The plaintiff’s actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens, and since he must have expected to run a risk of injury, they also allowed the defence of volentia no fit injuria.
Scrutton LJ, Slesser LJ
[1933] 2 KB 297, [1933] 102 LJKB 663, [1933] LT 436
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 11-Feb-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.188820

Besozzi v Harris: 1858

The court considered the owner’s liability for injury caused by a bear on a chain on the defendant’s premises.
(1858) 1 F and F 92
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRead v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.258603

Buckle v Holmes: CA 1926

[1926] 2 KB 125
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBuckle v Holmes KBD 1925
The defendant’s cat had killed what were said to be valuable racing and homing pigeons and some bantams of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for damages for the loss, but was unable to prove that the defendant knew the cat to have any specially . .

Cited by:
MentionedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.650622

Young v Hichens: 21 Nov 1844

The plaintiff was fishing in the sea for pilchards and had drawn his net around a large number of fish, but at a moment when his net remained open by some seven fathoms and he was about to close it, the defendant rowed up to the opening of the net and disturbed the fish so that they escaped.
Held: The defendant was not liable for the plaintiff’s loss of the fish, because at the critical moment the plaintiff had not yet taken possession of the fish, which he could only do by closing the net.
[1844] EngR 1009, (1844) 6 QB 606, (1844) 115 ER 228
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThe Ship Frederick Gerring Jr v The Queen 1-May-1897
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court was asked whether a vessel was forfeit to the Crown on the grounds that it had been used for fishing within a three mile limit from the Canadian coast. The fishing process had started outside the limit. A large . .
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.305601

Rex v Steer: 1704

A quantity of carp was stolen from a private pond.
Held: the fish were the property of the owner of the pond. The fish could not swim away from an enclosed pond and thereby become lost.
(1704) 6 Modern 183, (1704) 87 ER 939
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650618

Buckle v Holmes: KBD 1925

The defendant’s cat had killed what were said to be valuable racing and homing pigeons and some bantams of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for damages for the loss, but was unable to prove that the defendant knew the cat to have any specially vicious propensity as compared with cats generally. He therefore argued that, although cats were to be regarded as domitae naturae in general, they should be classified as ferae naturae in relation to birds such as pigeons and bantams.
The distinction was too long and firmly settled as a matter of law for the court to qualify or modify the established classification, however well-disposed they might have been to the proposition if it had not been settled law for a very long time.
Shearman J and Sankey J
(1925) 134 LT 284
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBuckle v Holmes CA 1926
. .
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650621

The Ship Frederick Gerring Jr v The Queen: 1 May 1897

(Supreme Court of Canada) The court was asked whether a vessel was forfeit to the Crown on the grounds that it had been used for fishing within a three mile limit from the Canadian coast. The fishing process had started outside the limit. A large quantity of mackerel had been collected in a seine, and the crew proceeded to bale the fish from the seine into the vessel. While that process was under way the vessel moved to within the three mile limit. The question was whether ‘fishing or catching fish’ was happening within the limit, it being argued that the fishing was complete when the fish were within the seine.
Held: by a majority) The process of fishing was not yet complete while the fish were being baled out from the seine into the vessel. Sedgewick J, with whom King J and Girouard J agreed, spoke of the process continuing until the moment when the fish ‘are finally reduced to actual and certain possession’, which he held did not happen in that case until all the fish were on board the vessel. King J and Girouard J both held that the case before that court was analogous to that which had been at issue in Young v Hichens.
Sir Henry Strong CJ and Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ
(1897) 27 SCR 271, [1897] CarswellNat 36
Canlii
Canada
Citing:
CitedYoung v Hichens 21-Nov-1844
The plaintiff was fishing in the sea for pilchards and had drawn his net around a large number of fish, but at a moment when his net remained open by some seven fathoms and he was about to close it, the defendant rowed up to the opening of the net . .

Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650625

Ewart v Graham: HL 1859

The parties disputed the scope and extent of a reservation to the respondent’s father in an Act of Parliament of ‘all rights of hunting, shooting, fishing and fowling’ over certain specified land which had been owned by the respondent’s father and later came into the ownership of the appellant.
Held: Lord Campbell LC described the sporting rights in question as being ‘an interest in the realty which is well known to the law’. He went on to say: ‘The property in animals ferae naturae while they are on the soil belongs to the owner of the soil and he may grant a right to others to come and take them by a grant of hunting, shooting, fowling and so forth; that right may be granted by the owner of the fee simple, and such a grant is a licence of a profit a prendre.’
Lord Campbell LC
(1859) 7 HLC 331
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650623

Kearry v Pattinson: CA 1939

A claim was made for damages by the plaintiff bee-keeper, against the defendant, his neighbour. The plaintiff’s bees swarmed and settled in the garden of the defendant. He sought to recover his bees but the neighbour initially refused to give the plaintiff permission to enter his property. But on the next day, the neighbour gave permission to the beekeeper to enter his property. But the bees had flown.
Held: Bees are animals ferae naturae, but become the qualified property of the person who hives them.
‘There is no doubt in this case that these bees had been hived by the plaintiff. Therefore, before they swarmed, they were his property, and I think that the bees, when they swarmed, so long as they were in his sight, and so long as he had power to pursue them, would remain his property . . To that extent he has power to pursue, but I cannot think that he has a legal right to go on to the land of another in order to pursue them. Bees are ferae naturae before being hived. When hived, they are taken into the disposition of the owner, and become his property. They remain his property while they are swarming only so long as they are in his sight, and he has lawful power to pursue them. That is how I read the authorities. Whether the point is right or not, I think that, as a matter of legal principle, it is clear that, once it is established that he has no right to follow the bees, they cannot, the moment his right to follow ceases, be considered his or anybody’s chattels until they are hived again. For that reason, I think that this action is misconceived, because the bees had ceased altogether to be in the disposition of the plaintiff.’
Slesser, Clauson and Goddard LJJ
[1939] 1 KB 471, [1939] 1 All E R 65
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650627

Hamps v Darby: CA 1948

The court was asked as to a civil action concerning the depredations of homing pigeons on crops.
Evershed LJ quoted from Holdsworth’s History of English Law about keeping a singing bird which is of value even though not in monetary terms: ‘For if I have a singing bird, though it be not pecuniarily profitable, yet it refreshes my spirits and gives me good health, which is a greater treasure than great riches. So if anyone takes it from me he does me much damage for which I shall have an action.’
Evershed LJ
[1948] 2 KB 31, [1948] 2 All ER 474
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650624

Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd: ChD 24 Jul 2019

Dispute as to ownership of fish in fishing lake on its sale, and whether solar panels were fixtures. The fish had been purchased for the fishery. Small fish might escape through meshes, but larger fish were captive. The contract of sale of the land had not made explicit provision. The buyer asserted that the process of enclosing the fish created a qualified property per industrial in the fish.
Held: The claim succeeded ut only in part. Fish in their nature and even if held captured were wild animals and not capable of being subject to absolute property rights, though a qualified right could be asserted whilst they were held captive. That qualified property had not been assigned by the contract. Therefore the claimant had a possessory title on which it could found its conversion claim.
As to the solar panels, they were fixtures, and had passed with the contract.
Hodge QC HHJ
[2019] EWHC 2272 (Ch), [2020] 1 WLR 559, [2019] WLR(D) 626
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGreyes Case 1593
Grey brought an action of trespasse against Bartholmew : the case was : A man did purchase divers fishes, viz. carpes, tenches, trouts, Be. arid put them into his pond for store, and then died.
The question was, whether the heire or the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.640880

Blades v Higgs and Another: 8 Jun 1861

Wild animals, whilst living, though they were the property of the owner of the soil on which they were living, were not his personal chattels. Animals ferae naturae killed by a trespasser became the property of the landowner.
Lord Chelmsford said: ‘With respect to wild and unreclaimed animals therefore, there can be no doubt that no property exists in them so long as they remain in the state of nature. It is also equally certain that when killed or reclaimed by the owner of the land on which they are found, or by his authority, they become at once his property, absolutely when they are killed, and in a qualified manner when they are reclaimed.’
Property ratione privilegii is a right by virtue of ‘a peculiar franchise anciently granted by the Crown in virtue of its prerogative’, of which examples include a free warren.
Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford
[1861] EngR 693, (1861) 10 CB NS 713, (1861) 142 ER 634
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.284454

Fitzgerald v Firbank: 1897

The owner of a right of fishing asserted a cause of action without proof of special damage against someone who had polluted the river in which the right was exercised.
Held: A right of fishing was of such a nature that a person who enjoyed it had such possessory rights that he could bring an action for trespass at common law for the infringement of those rights. Rigby LJ: ‘There was another point about several fishery which we do not need to deal with, because the decision of the Queen’s Bench was overruled in that respect. But the important point was whether the grantee could sue in trespass, and in the Court of Exchequer Chamber it was held that he might. The Court of Exchequer Chamber said that it was not necessary for them to decide the question whether the count might not be a count in case, but that they saw no reason to doubt that the Queen’s Bench were right on that point. But that does not mean that the plaintiff can only sue in trespass. I cannot doubt, on the construction of the grant, the right of the plaintiffs by virtue of that grant to sue for a wrongful act which operates as a disturbance of the rights granted by the deed. The argument was pushed with the greatest courage to this extent – that a wrongdoer, unless he tried to do the very thing that the grantees were authorised to do, might destroy the whole subject-matter of the grant and be liable to no action. I never met with any case which gave the slightest colour to such a doctrine. I hold that the grantees of the incorporeal hereditament have a right of action against any person who disturbs them either by trespass or by nuisance, or in any other substantial manner.’
Lindley LJ, Rigby LJ, Lopes LJ
[1897] 2 Ch 96
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHolford v Bailey 1849
. .

Cited by:
CitedWatkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others CA 20-Jul-2004
The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor’s correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage.
Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort . .
ExplainedNicholas v Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd CA 1936
The plaintiff owned several fisheries and sought damages after the defendant polluted the riner. He was unable to prove any actual loss.
Held: Disturbance of a several fishery was an invasion of a legal right, and in such a case the injury to . .
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.199935

Hesketh v Willis Cruisers Ltd: CA 1968

Where the fishing rights have not been severed from the lake or river bed, they simply pass automatically as part of the land; and there is no need for them to be separately transferred to the purchaser of the land
Diplock LJ
(1968) 19 P and CR 573
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650620

Regina v Townley: 1871

Bovill CJ made it clear that in animals ferae naturae, there was no absolute property. There was only a special or qualified property.
Bovill CJ
(1871) LR 1 CCR 315
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.650619

Cresswell and Another v Director Of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Nov 2006

The defendants opposed the actions of DEFRA in trapping and then killing badgers. They were accused of criminal damage to the traps. They asserted a lawful excuse in seeking to release the badgers. While a wild animal was alive, there was no absolute property in that animal. There might however be, what was known as a qualified property in the animal in three circumstances.
Mr Justice (Paul) Walker, Keene L
[2006] EWHC 3379 (Admin), 171 JPR 233
Bailii
Criminal Damage Act 1971
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.376260

Greyes Case: 1593

Grey brought an action of trespasse against Bartholmew : the case was : A man did purchase divers fishes, viz. carpes, tenches, trouts, Be. arid put them into his pond for store, and then died.
The question was, whether the heire or the executors should have the fish.
Held: It was a felony to steal fish out of a trunk or some narrow place, where they are put to be taken at will and pleasure; but it is otherwise where they are put into a pond.
[1650] EngR 91, (1650) Owen 20, (1650) 74 ER 869 (C)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd ChD 24-Jul-2019
Dispute as to ownership of fish in fishing lake on its sale, and whether solar panels were fixtures. The fish had been purchased for the fishery. Small fish might escape through meshes, but larger fish were captive. The contract of sale of the land . .
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.416911

Keen v Whistler: 1795

Trespass for chasing his cow, and his domestic fowls, viz. hens, geese, and co. with dogs, which dogs were used to bite tame fowl, by whose biting they were killed. On not guilty, verdict for the plaintiff; and he had his full costs, because this is not a trespass wherein the right of the freehold may come in question.
[1795] EngR 2266, (1795) 1 Str 534, (1795) 93 ER 683 (C)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.354611