swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Agency - From: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Days Medical Aids Limited v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd, Pihsiang Wu (Also Known As Donald P H Wu), Chiang Ching-Ming Wu (Also Known As Jenny Wu) [2004] EWHC 44 (Comm)
29 Jan 2004
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Langley
Contract, Contract, Agency
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Oxford Aviation Services Limited v Godolphin Management Company Limited [2004] EWHC 232 (QB)
13 Feb 2004
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Cooke
Agency, Negligence
An aircraft crashed. It was owned by the claimant and flown by the defendant. The claimant sought payment of various heads of damages relating to the loss of the aircraft. The parties disputed the terms of the bailment. Held: The evidence suggested the aircraft was on hire, and to be insured by the defendant, who had to pay damages accordingly.
[ Bailii ]
Cooper and others v Pure Fishing (Uk) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 375
18 Mar 2004
CA
Agency, European
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 - Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents 17
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
In re F (Enduring power of Attorney); ChD 2-Apr-2004 - Times, 29 April 2004
Vale v Armstrong, Armstrong [2004] EWHC 1160 (Ch)
21 May 2004
ChD
Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe
Land, Undue Influence, Agency
The claimant sought to set aside a transfer of his house to the defendants made at an undervalue and under an enduring power of attorney, who had charged it to raise money for their business. He had received independent advice. Held: The transaction was disadvantageous to the claimant and there was therefore a presumption of undue influence. However there was also evidence of independent advice etc to rebut that presumption, but "it by no means follows that prior legal advice rebuts the presumption."
The independent advice had failed to bring home the true disadvantages of the transaction to the claimant. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption, and it was set aside.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd [2004] EWHC 1502 (Comm); [2004] 2 Lloyds Rep 251
30 Jun 2004
ComC
Agency, Contract, Vicarious Liability
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight. Held: There was a bailment involving (though not perfectly) the standard BIFA terms. There was insufficient evidence to support proof of any additional or collateral contract to provide additional security. It appeared that the theft had taken place with the connivance or assistance of a member of the staff of the bailee. Was the employer vicariously liable? "vicarious liability is not established simply because the "guilty" servant had, by reason of his employment, the opportunity to commit the wrongdoing in question. To establish vicarious liability, more than a mere opportunity to commit wrongdoing must exist; there must be a close connection between the work the servant had been employed to do and the wrongdoing. " Here, the custody of the premises could not be divorced from the custody of the goods, and the company was liable. Was their liability limited by the terms? Limitation clauses were looked at less strictly than exclusion clauses, and the defendant was able to limit its liability in contract and negligence, and had done so. The 1977 Act did not prevent the limitation of liability in these circumstances.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Days Medical Aids Ltd v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd and others; CA 13-Jul-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 993; [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 991; [2004] Eu LR 477; [2004] UKCLR 384
Benford Ltd and Another v Lopecan Sl [2004] EWHC 1897 (Comm)
30 Jul 2004
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morison
Agency
The parties disputed the coverage agreed under a distribution agreement. Held: "The counterclaim operated as a defence by way of set off. In order to establish that defence the defendant will have to prove the losses pleaded . . . Until the end of the trial it may not be known whether in total those cross claims, if made out, will exceed in value the amount of the claim. If they did, then the court would find the amount proved under the various heads and then, if Mr Eder were right, refer the question of excess to an arbitration. At the arbitration, there would be an issue estoppel and the arbitrators would simply be asked to endorse the Court's decision as to the excess. That cannot make commercial sense. If the cross claim did not amount to a transactional set-off, then I can quite understand that the Court would be obliged to refer such a claim to arbitration under section 9 of the Act. But the question is how clause 18.3 should be construed and I consider that Mr Dye's emphasis on the word "action" as apposite to cover both claim and cross claim, which is a partial set-off, makes commercial sense. The courts will, when construing an arbitration agreement seek to give it business sense against the likely background that parties will incline to what might be called a one-stop litigation process."
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Dacre Son and Hartley Ltd v North Yorkshire Trading Standards [2004] EWHC 2783 (Admin)
27 Oct 2004
Admn
Thomas LJ, Fulford J
Agency, Crime
The defendants appealed a conviction under the Act complaining of the adequacy of the evidence presented. A buyer had found dampness in a property. It was later remarketed by the defendant who asked if it suffered dampness. She was told it did not. Held: ". . . the informations each described the specific offence charged in ordinary language and gave sufficient particulars so that the appellant was provided with reasonable understanding of the nature and detail of the charges. " and "if a defendant genuinely considers that lack of particularity in the information (as opposed, for instance, to a defect inherently fatal to the charge) has created the potential for unfairness e.g. because of uncertainty as to the case the defendant has to meet -- this should usually be raised in advance of the trial, so that the court can consider the position. Deliberately deferring the issue until midway through the trial will usually make it materially more difficult for the defendant to complain that the trial is unfair. "
Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 1 - Magistrates' Courts (Advance Information) Rules 1985 4(1)(a) - Property Misdescriptions (Specified Matters) Order 1992 - Magistrates' Court Rules 1981 100
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
