Category: Commonwealth

Meeruppe Sumanatissa Terunnanse v Warakapitiye Pangnananda Terunnanse: PC 23 Jan 1968

Ceylon – A bare licence terminates on the transfer of the licensor’s own title.

Judges:

Lord Devlin

Citations:

[1968] UKPC 3, [1968] AC 1086

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Totton and Eling Town Council v Caunter and Another ChD 11-Jun-2008
The council appealed against an award by the adjudicator of title by adverse possession in favour of the respondents.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On any sensible analysis from the Council’s perspective, the Caunters were entitled to remain in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Land

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.429941

The Director of Public Prosecutions v Donald White: PC 28 Apr 1977

(Jamaica) At his trial, the jury had first indicated that they were to give a majority verdict, but then returned a unanimous verdict. At the time, one hour had not passed and therefore a majority verdict was not available to them. The court had ordered a venire de novo.
Held: In jurisdictions where appellate courts have power to order retrial ‘the concept of nullity of proceedings has been extended to situations beyond those covered by the ancient writ of venire de novo.’

Judges:

Diplock, Simon of Glaisdale, Salmon, Edmund-Davies, Russell of Killowen LL

Citations:

[1977] 3 WLR 447, [1977] Crim LR 418, [1977] UKPC 8, [1978] AC 426, [1977] 3 All ER 1003

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429886

The Attorney General for Saint Christopher and Nevis v Sir Probyn Inniss: PC 18 Jul 1988

(Eastern Caribbean)

Citations:

[1988] UKPC 15

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Takitota v The Attorney General and Others PC 18-Mar-2009
Bahamas – The claimant appeald as to the amount of compensation awarded to him for his unlawful detention for over eight years, in appalling prison conditions. The Court of Appeal categorised his treatment not only as ‘less than humane’ but as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429864

The Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid and Reid And Marc Molloy Co: PC 1 Nov 1993

(New Zealand) The Board considered the power to recover property owned by a public official found to have taken bribes.
Held: The bribes received by the policeman were held on trust for his principal, and so they could be traced into properties which he had acquired in New Zealand.
Lord Templeman said: ‘When a bribe is accepted by a fiduciary in breach of his duty then he holds that bribe in trust for the person to whom the duty was owed. If the property representing the bribe decreases in value the fiduciary must pay the difference between that value and the initial amount of the bribe because he should not have accepted the bribe or incurred the risk of loss. If the property increases in value, the fiduciary is not entitled to any surplus in excess of the initial value of the bribe because he is not allowed by any means to make a profit out of a breach of duty.’ and
‘a fiduciary must not be allowed to benefit from his own breach of duty, that the fiduciary should account for the bribe as soon as he receives it and that equity regards as done that which ought to be done. From these principles it would appear to follow that the bribe and the property from time to time representing the bribe are held on a constructive trust for the person injured. A fiduciary remains personally liable for the amount of the bribe if, in the event, the value of the property then recovered by the injured person proved to be less than that amount.’

Judges:

Templeman, Goff of Chieleley, Lowry, Lloyd of Berwick LL, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum

Citations:

[1993] UKPC 36, [1994] 1 All ER 1, [1994] AC 324, [1993] 3 WLR 1143

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Disapproved – Metropolitan Bank v Heiron CA 1880
A claim brought by a company against a director was time-barred: the claim was to recover a bribe paid by a third party to induce the director to influence the company to negotiate a favourable settlement with the third party. The bank failed in its . .

Cited by:

Preferred – Daraydan Holdings Limited, Cairn Estates Limited and Others v Solland International Limited and Others ChD 26-Mar-2004
The court was asked whether Lister and Co v Stubbs 45 ChD 1, a decision of the Court of Appeal, was binding on him or whether he could apply the Privy Council’s decision in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid
Held: On the facts of the case . .
Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429787

Bahamas Hotel Maintenance and Allied Workers Union v Bahamas Hotel Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others: PC 23 Feb 2011

Two trade union disputed the right of the other to be registered with and to use a similar name to their own. There had been considerable delays in the conduct of the judicial review proceeding.
Held: The Board upheld the trial judge’s refusal to grant judicial review of the unlawful registration of a trade union in part because of the delay by the rival union in challenging it.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe observed that conclusive evidence provisions (there was one akin to section 10 of the 1965 Act here) ‘are often included in legislation relating to official registers, because such registers cannot serve their purpose unless members of the public can safely rely on them’

Judges:

Lord Hope, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Clarke

Citations:

[2011] UKPC 4

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Adamson and Others v Paddico (267) Ltd SC 5-Feb-2014
Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
Held: The appeal were solely as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Company, Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429745

Blue Haven Enterprises Ltd v Tully and Another: PC 21 Feb 2006

(Jamaica )

Citations:

[2006] UKPC 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and others ChD 15-May-2006
The claimant was entitled to share in the copyright royalties of Bob Marley and the Wailers, and claimed payment from the defendants. The defendants said that the matters had already been settled and that the claim was an abuse of process, and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.240021

Harry Lee Wee v The Law Society of Singapore: PC 3 Dec 1984

(Singapore) The principles of autrefois acquit applied to professional disciplinary proceedings. Lord Bridge said: ‘No one would dispute that the doctrine of autrefois convict and acquit is applicable to disciplinary proceedings under a statutory code by which any profession is governed.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1984] UKPC 50, [1985] 1 WLR 362, [1984] UKPC 50

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Legal Professions

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428061

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop: PC 23 Mar 2005

(Trinidad and Tobago) A police officer had unjustifiably roughed up, arrested, taken to the police station and locked up Mr Ramanoop, who now sought constitutional redress, including exemplary damages. He did not claim damages for the nominate torts that had certainly been committed. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that constitutional redress, in so far as it took the form of an award of damages, should be confined to compensatory damages.
Held: The Board upheld the award of vindicatory damages in respect of the officers serious misbehaviour, though these were not exemplary damages or awarded for any punitive purpose.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: ‘Their Lordships view the matter as follows. Section 14 recognises and affirms the court’s power to award remedies for contravention of chapter I rights and freedoms. This jurisdiction is an integral part of the protection chapter I of the Constitution confers on the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. It is an essential element in the protection intended to be afforded by the Constitution against misuse of state power. Section 14 presupposes that, by exercise of this jurisdiction, the court will be able to afford the wronged citizen effective relief in respect of the state’s violation of a constitutional right. This jurisdiction is separate from and additional to (‘without prejudice to’) all other remedial jurisdiction of the court.
. . When exercising this constitutional jurisdiction the court is concerned to uphold, or vindicate, the constitutional right which has been contravened. A declaration by the court will articulate the fact of the violation, but in most cases more will be required than words. If the person wronged has suffered damage, the court may award him compensation. The comparable common law measure of damages will often be a useful guide in assessing the amount of compensation. But this measure is no more than a guide because the award of compensation under section 14 is discretionary and moreover, the violation of the constitutional right will not always be coterminous with the cause of action at law.
An award of compensation will go some distance towards vindicating the infringed constitutional right. How far it goes will depend on the circumstances, but in principle it may well not suffice. The fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra dimension to the wrong. An additional award, not necessarily of substantial size, may be needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasise the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter further breaches. All these elements have a place in this additional award. ‘Redress’ in section 14 is apt to encompass such an award if the court considers it is required having regard to all the circumstances. Although such an award, where called for, is likely in most cases to cover much the same ground in financial terms as would an award by way of punishment in the strict sense of retribution, punishment in the latter sense is not its object. Accordingly, the expressions ‘punitive damages’ or ‘exemplary damages’ are better avoided as descriptions of this type of additional award . . For these reasons their Lordships are unable to accept the Attorney General’s basic submission that a monetary award under section 14 is confined to an award of compensatory damages in the traditional sense. Bereaux J stated his jurisdiction too narrowly. The matter should be remitted to him, or another judge, to consider whether an additional award of damages of the character described above is appropriate in this case. Their Lordships dismiss this appeal with costs.’

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 15, [2005] 2 WLR 1324, [2006] 1 AC 328

Links:

Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harrikissoon v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 1980
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant teacher alleged that he had been transferred from one school to another without proper notice and as punishment. The appellant instead of following a laid out procedure which would have eventually led to a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Merson v Cartwright, The Attorney General PC 13-Oct-2005
(Bahamas) The defendant police had appealed the quantum of damages awarded to the claimant for assault and battery and false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, saying that she had been doubly compensated. The claimant now appealed reduction of . .
Cited – Ashley 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 . .
Cited – Subiah v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Nov-2008
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the extent of damages for infringement of the claimant’s constitutional rights. He had been on board a bus. He complained when a policeman was allowed not to buy a ticket. The same constable arrested him as . .
Cited – Takitota v the Attorney General and others PC 18-Mar-2009
(Bahamas) The applicant a tourist had been wrongfully detained in appalling conditions in the Bahamas for over eight years after he lost his documents. He now appealed against an award of $500,000 dollars compensation.
Held: ‘it would not be . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Takitota v The Attorney General and Others PC 18-Mar-2009
Bahamas – The claimant appeald as to the amount of compensation awarded to him for his unlawful detention for over eight years, in appalling prison conditions. The Court of Appeal categorised his treatment not only as ‘less than humane’ but as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Police, Constitutional

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.223876

The United Motor Finance Company v Messrs Addison and Company Limited: PC 10 Dec 1936

(Madras) ‘Nor can they [the dealers] modify the resulting damages on the footing that though in the absence of misrepresentation the plaintiff firm [the finance company] would not have made the contract with the defendants [the dealers] or with the hirer which it did in fact make, nevertheless even if it had known the facts it would have entered into some other contract and thus lost money in any event.’

Citations:

[1936] UKPC 85, [1937] 1 All ER 425, Appeal No 60 of 1936

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426437

Andre Paul Terence Ambard v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 2 Mar 1936

(Trinidad and Tobago) Lord Atkin said: ‘Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.’

Citations:

[1936] UKPC 16, [1936] AC 322, Appeal No. 46 of 1935

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426368

Mangal Singh v The King-Emperor (Lahore): PC 19 Feb 1937

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder and against his sentence of death.
Held: The appeal failed. Though the evidence was largely circumstantial, there was sufficient to allow the court to find the offence proved. It was not part of the duty of the Board to sit as a court of Criminal Appeal but only to correct a perceived miscarriage of justice.

Judges:

Alness L, Sir Shadi Lal, Sir George Rankin

Citations:

[1937] UKPC 24

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426090

Campbell v The Queen: PC 3 Nov 2010

(Court of Appeal of Jamaica) The defendant had been convicted of murder and his applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused. He applied to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica ‘on appeal from a court of Jamaica’.
Held: Special leave could be granted where the appellate courts of the local jurisdiction had refused to entertain any appeal against the decision or conviction in respect of which special leave to appeal was sought.
Lord Mance, gave the judgment of the Board, saying that the question was whether the Lane v Esdaile principle applied to the interpretation of the statutory provisions under consideration.
There was no trace of any such rule having been routinely applied to the statutory provisions which governed the grant of special leave to appeal. Secondly, the statutory provisions contemplated that special leave may be given in respect of a decision or order of a first instance court. Thirdly, the provisions ‘affirmed and regulated’ in statutory form the former royal prerogative which itself could not ‘be restricted or qualified save by express words or by necessary intendment’.
He concluded that the combination of these points was ‘decisive’: There is nothing clearly or necessarily to restrict the broad language reflecting the royal prerogative power to grant special leave now enacted in statutory form in section 3 of the 1844 Act and section 44 of the 1833 Act. The breadth of the prerogative power, now statutorily expressed, and the very varied contexts in which it applies militate against the recognition or introduction of any formal limitation upon section 3 and section 1 paralleling the rule in Lane v Esdaile. The Board concludes therefore that the rule in Lane v Esdaile is not applicable on any application made for special leave to the Privy Council itself.’

Judges:

Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr

Citations:

[2010] UKPC 26, [2011] 2 AC 79, [2011] 2 WLR 983

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Lane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sarfraz v Disclosure and Barring Service CA 22-May-2015
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the defendant to remove his name from the list of those barred from working with children. He had been a GP. Though not priosecuted for any criminal offence the Professional Conduct Committee had found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425748