Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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.  














Commonwealth - From: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 250 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Moevao v Department of Labour [1980] 1 NZLR 464
1980

Richardson J
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(New Zealand) Richardson J said: "The justification for staying a prosecution is that the court is obliged to take that extreme step in order to protect its own processes from abuse. It does so in order to prevent the criminal processes from being used for purposes alien to the administration of criminal justice under law. It may intervene in this way if it concludes from the conduct of the prosecutor in relation to the prosecution that the court processes are being employed for ulterior purposes or in such a way (for example, through multiple or successive proceedings) as to cause improper vexation and oppression. The yardstick is not simply fairness to the particular accused. It is not whether the initiation and continuation of the particular process seems in the uncertain circumstances to be unfair to him. That may be an important consideration. But the focus is on the misuse of the court process by those responsible for the law enforcement. It is whether the continuation of the prosecution is inconsistent with the recognised purposes of the administration of criminal justice and so constitutes an abuse of the process of the court."
1 Citers


 
Harrikissoon v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265
1980
PC
Lord Diplock
Constitutional, Commonwealth
(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 decision by the Teaching Service Commission, sued under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago for a declaration of breach of his human rights. Held: The Board pointed out the danger of allowing the value of the right to apply to the High Court for redress for contravention of his fundamental rights and freedoms which is conferred upon the individual by section [14] of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago to become debased by failure by the courts to dispose summarily of applications that are plainly frivolous or vexatious or are otherwise an abuse of process of the court.
Lord Diplock said: "One of the grounds on which both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s claim was because they regarded themselves as precluded from adjudicating upon it by section 102(4) of the Constitution which provides: "The question whether - (a) A Commission to which this section applies had validly performed any function vested in it by or under this Constitution . . shall not be inquired into in any court." The ouster of the court’s jurisdiction effected by this section is in terms absolute. In their Lordships’ view it is clearly wide enough to deprive all courts of jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the validity of an order of transfer on either of the grounds alleged by the appellant in the instant case; and that is sufficient to support the dismissal of the appellant’s claim on this ground also.
In all the judgments below, however, there is considerable discussion of recent English cases dealing with "ouster of jurisdiction clauses" contained in Acts of Parliament. Section 102(4) does not form part of an Act of Parliament; it is part of the Constitution itself. Their Lordships do not think that the instant appeal provides an appropriate occasion for considering whether section 102(4) of the Constitution, despite its unqualified language, is nevertheless subject to the same limited kind of implicit exception as was held by the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd. V. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147 to apply to an ouster of jurisdiction clause in very similar terms contained in an Act of Parliament. This question is best left to be decided in some future case if one should arise, in which the facts provide a concrete example of the kind of circumstances that were discussed in the judgments in the Anisminic case. The facts in the instant appeal do not. The appeal is dismissed with costs."
1 Citers



 
 Castrol Australia Pty Ltd v EmTech Associates Pty Ltd; 1980 - [1980] 51 FLR 184
 
Central and Eastern Trust Co v Irving Oil Ltd (1980) DLR (3d) 257
1980


Company, Commonwealth
(Canada) Indirect financial assistance in purchase of company's shares.
1 Citers


 
Reid v The Queen [1980] AC 343
1980
PC
Lord Diplock
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
It is not in the interests of justice for the prosecution to be given a second chance to make good deficiencies in its case. The Board gave guidance on the considerations relevant to ordering a new trial: "... the interest of justice that is served by the power to order a new trial is the interest of the public ... that those persons who are guilty of serious crimes should be brought to justice and not escape it merely because of some technical blunder by the judge in the conduct of the trial or in his summing up to the jury." Furthermore "... it is not necessarily a condition precedent to the ordering of a new trial that the Court of Appeal should be satisfied of the probability that it will result in a conviction. There may be cases where, even though the Court of Appeal considers that upon a fresh trial an acquittal is on balance more likely than a conviction, 'It is in the interest of the public, the complainant, and the [defendant] himself that the question of guilt or otherwise be determined finally by the verdict of a jury, and not left as something which must remain undecided by reason of a defect in legal machinery.' This was said by the Full Court of Hong Kong when ordering a new trial in Ng Yuk-kin v The Crown (1955) 39 HKLR 49, 60. That was a case of rape, but in their Lordships' view it states a consideration that may be of wider application."
1 Citers


 
Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v Alex Harvey Industries [1980] 1 NZLR 163
1980


Commonwealth, Media
The rule against a newspaper being ordered to disclose the source of its information in defamation proceedings was extended to apply also in slander of goods.
1 Citers


 
Timber Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Anderson [1980] 2 NSWLR 488
1980

Kearney J
Commonwealth, Trusts
(New South Wales) The manager and a sales representative of TECO set up separate competing business. Anderson with his wife, began a new company Mallory Trading Pty Ltd which acted as a a fraud on TECO. On learning of each others acts, they joined forces and diverted business and profits from TECO. In July 1977 Toy resigned from TECO to work full time for Mallory Trading; and in November 1977 Anderson was dismissed, whereupon he, too, began to work full time for Mallory Trading. In February 1978 they incorporated another company, Mallory Timber Products Pty Ltd ("Mallory Timber") to which they transferred the business of Mallory Trading. TECO sought an account of profits and declaration of trust of the businesses of Mallory Trading and Mallory Timber and of the shares in both companies held by Anderson, Toy and their respective wives. Held: Kearney J approved this statement by Dr PD Finn in Fiduciary Relations: "The fiduciary's liability for gains is a liability as trustee and for trust property. It is, as will be seen, one which can give rise to personal actions against a fiduciary. It can give rise to actions in rem to recover extant trust property."
The trust property was extant: "It is clear that the business had its genesis in the resources and facilities of TECO which were available to Anderson and Toy. It is also clear that they did take advantage of such resources and facilities so as to cause life to be breathed into the mere shell of Mallory Trading, bearing in mind that the business of Mallory Trading was built upon cash flow and sales. The whole substance of Mallory Trading as a viable business enterprise stemmed from the resources of TECO which were utilized in Mallory Trading. The outstanding features of the nurturing of Mallory Trading are that its executives were being paid by TECO, its customers were TECO customers, and its products were significantly derived from TECO products . . the whole of the TECO business (including, not only physical facilities such as telephones, motor cars and expense accounts) were used; but also its intangible elements such as marketing methods, knowledge of customers and goodwill were also resorted to in building up Mallory Trading. Another significant feature is that the inevitable result of the defendants using TECO as the vehicle to establish Mallory Trading as a going concern was that TECO was gravely harmed. It not only lost the orders that were misappropriated, but this in turn led to the loss of customers and substantial damage to its goodwill . . There can be no doubt that the creation and development of Mallory Trading dealt a crippling blow to the business of TECO.
Every opportunity which Mallory Trading has received is directly traceable to resources and benefits provided by TECO, even of time and efforts expended by Anderson and Toy for which TECO was paying. Every advance made by Mallory Trading was also due to the advantages of the tangible and intangible resources and facilities provided from TECO. In truth, the business of Mallory Trading was carved out of the business of TECO, and thus ought to be treated as being, as at July 1977, held on trust for TECO."
July 1977 was the date when Toy resigned from TECO. Kearney J then dealt with a number of arguments relating to subsequent events. The real issue was whether the trust property represented by the business of Mallory Trading remained extant. The defendants' first submission was that the business of Mallory Timber was a fresh unrelated business free from any trust. The judge described that as "insupportable": "I regard the business carried on by Mallory Timber products as representing the trust property of which Mallory Trading was originally the trustee." The defendants submitted that if there was any liability after July 1977, the liability should be limited to an account of profits, and should not extend to a declaration that the business was itself held on trust; whatever the position might have been in July 1977, the continued carrying on of the business had been wholly due to the defendants' own efforts; and that any benefit attributable to the trust as it existed in July 1977 had been displaced. Kearney J dealt with this submission as follows: "The fact that the trustee carried on a business and improved it by its own exertions did not, in my view have the effect of extinguishing the trust property as so to terminate the trust. The business, as a trading enterprise, continued to subsist as an identifiable item of property. The fact that the business may have been enhanced through the efforts of the trustee cannot affect the continued existence of the trust." The defendants ' submitted that any account should be limited to former customers of TECO, and that the extent of sales to those customers could be readily ascertained from the accounts. Kearney J rejected that submission too. He said that this submission took: "too limited a view of the extent of the benefit represented by the existence of the business of Mallory Trading as a going concern. While its attributes included the connection with former TECO customers, it also had the inherent capacity as an established business to expand the range of its customers and products."
He concluded: "It seems to me that the present case falls within the second example stated by Upjohn J [in Re Jarvis], namely that the Mallory companies are accountable as constructive trustees of the business. The contribution of skill and industry by all the defendants to the continued carrying on of the business can be adequately provided for by the making of proper allowances, as indicated by Upjohn J I consider that, in determining the form of relief to be granted, not only is Upjohn J's first example inappropriate to the facts of the case, but also that justice can be done, in the circumstances of this case, by making the declaration of trust as to the business on the footing of all just allowances.
. . The trust property remains identifiable in the hands of the trustee, and TECO is entitled to have the benefit of it, subject to the efforts of the defendants being duly remunerated.
Additionally, although there is no evidence at present, the defendants may be able to establish upon the taking of accounts of profits, that assets comprised in the business have been contributed by them from sources other than those generated by the business itself. If so, it may further be possible to show that consequently a proportionate interest in the business exists in favour of the defendants, or that they are entitled to a specific item of property, or to a charge upon the trust property as a whole."
1 Citers


 
Archer v Cutler [1980] 1 NZLR 386
1980


Commonwealth, Contract
(New Zealand) The purchaser of land sought specific performance of the contract. The vendor and purchaser had been neighbours. The neighbour needed part of the vendor's land for access. Held: A contract made by a person of insufficient mental capacity was voidable at his option not only if the other party knew of or ought to have appreciated his unsoundness of mind, but also if the contract "was unfair to the person of unsound mind". There were no considerations of policy or principle precluding the court from holding that a contract entered into by a person of unsound mind is voidable at his option if it is proved either that the other party knew of his unsoundness of mind or, whether or not he had that knowledge, the bargain was unfair. The court considered the idea of an unfair cotract in English law: English law on the subject is ill-defined. The case of Imperial Loan Company v. Stone [ 1892] 1 Q.B. 599 widely accepted as being a statement of the law on avoidance of contracts made with persons of unsound mind would, save in the judgment of Lopes LJ, seem to regard unfairness of the contract as being of no moment. Proof of unsoundness of mind and the other party's knowledge of that unsoundness alone will avoid the contract. But the passage cited from the judgment of Lopes LJ. and the dicta of Pollock CB. in Molton v. Camroux (1848) 2 Exch 487 of Patteson J. on appeal in the same case, of Sir Ernest Pollock MR. in York Glass Company v. Jubb [1924] 131 L.T. Rep. 559 and of Sargant LJ. in the same case would suggest that proof of unfairness of a bargain entered into by a person of unsound mind, even though that unsoundness be not known to the other party, will suffice to avoid it." and "I find nothing in policy or principle to prevent me from holding that a contract entered into by a person of unsound mind is voidable at his option if it is proved either that the other party knew of his unsoundness of mind or, whether or not he had that knowledge, the contract was unfair to the person of unsound mind."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Ong Ah Chuan v The Public Prosecutor; PC 1980 - [1981] AC 648; [1980] 3 WLR 855; [1981] Crim LR 245

 
 Talbot v General Television Corporation Pty Ltd; 1980 - [1980] VicRp 26; [1981] RPC 1
 
Zainal bin Hashim v Government of Malaysia [1980] AC 734
1980
PC

Commonwealth, Constitutional
A statute should not be given a construction that would impair existing rights personal or in property unless the language in which it is couched requires such a construction. The court considered the presumption that vested rights are not affected without clear wording. The rule in Joseph Suche was to be restricted so that "for pending actions to be affected by retrospective legislation, the language of the enactment must be such that no other conclusion is possible than that that was the intention of the legislature." Since the potential injustice of interfering with the rights of parties to actual proceedings is particularly obvious, this narrower presumption will be that much harder to displace, but it was displaced in this case.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Morosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 418
1980

Samuels JA
Commonwealth, Defamation
(Court of Appeal of New South Wales) A radio broadcast dwelled at some length upon rumours concerning Ms Morosi (describing her as "the most notorious women’s name in the country"), but then went on to say that there was no truth in any of these claims. Held: Applying the bane and antidote rule, the broadcast was defamatory. Samuels JA noted: "I do not doubt that there are occasions when a publication which seeks to refute a calumny which it expressly states may be held incapable of conveying any defamatory meaning. Bik v Mirror Newspaper Ltd is an example. But such cases must be comparatively rare . . in a case such as this the material already contains a defamatory imputation; and the inquiry is whether that effect is overcome by contextual matter of an emollient kind so as to eradicate the hurt and render the whole publication harmless."
1 Citers


 
The Queen v Johns (TS) (1980) 143 CLR 108; [1980] HCA 3
7 Feb 1980

Mason, Murphy and Wilson JJ
Commonwealth, Crime, Criminal Sentencing
High Court of Australia - Criminal Law (N.S.W.) - Accessory before the fact - Liability - Possible consequences of venture planned with principal in first degree - Sentence of accessory - Whether judge may impose sentence of less duration than life - Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.), ss. 19, 346, 442 (1).
The appellant had been convicted of murder and assault with intent to rob. His role was to drive the principal offender, W, to a rendezvous with a third man, D. The appellant was to wait while the other two men robbed a known receiver of stolen jewellery. Afterwards the appellant was to take possession of the proceeds and hide them in return for a share. The appellant knew that W was carrying a pistol, and W told him that he would not stand for any nonsense if he met any obstacle during the robbery. In the event the victim resisted and W shot him dead.
The judge had directed the jury that the appellant and D would be guilty if the act constituting the offence committed was within the contemplation of the parties as an act done in the course of the venture on which they had embarked. It was argued on the appellant's behalf that while this was an appropriate direction in the case of D, who was present and therefore a principal in the second degree, it was a misdirection in the case of the appellant, who was an accessory before the fact. It was submitted that in his case it was necessary for the jury to conclude that it was a likely or probable consequence of the way in which the crime was to be committed that the gun would be discharged so as to kill the deceased. Held: The High Court unanimously rejected the argument that any distinction was to be drawn between the liability of a principal in the second degree and an accessory before the fact. There was no reason as a matter of legal principle why such a distinction should be drawn. They also said: "The narrow test of criminality proposed by the applicant is plainly unacceptable for the reason that it stakes everything on the probability or improbability of the act, admittedly contemplated, occurring. Suppose a plan made by A, the principal offender, and B, the accessory before the fact, to rob premises, according to which A is to carry out the robbery. It is agreed that A is to carry a revolver and use it to overcome resistance in the unlikely event that the premises are attended, previous surveillance having established that the premises are invariably unattended at the time when the robbery is to be carried out. As it happens, a security officer is in attendance when A enters the premises and is shot by A. It would make nonsense to say that B is not guilty merely because it was an unlikely or improbable contingency that the premises would be attended at the time of the robbery, when we know that B assented to the shooting in the event that occurred.
In the present case there was ample evidence from which the jury could infer that the applicant gave his assent to a criminal enterprise which involved the use, that is the discharge, of a loaded gun, in the event that [the victim] resisted or sought to summon assistance. We need not recapitulate the evidence to which we have already referred. The jury could therefore conclude that the common purpose involved resorting to violence of this kind, should the occasion arise, and that the violence contemplated amounted to grievous bodily harm or homicide."
[ Austlii ]
 
Anstalt Nybro (Formerly Named Anstalt Soro) v Hong Kong Resort Limited (Hong Kong) [1980] UKPC 4
11 Feb 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Coachcraft Ltd v SVP Fruit Co Ltd and Maxwell Geoffrey Chapman [1980] UKPC 1
11 Feb 1980
PC

Commonwealth
Victoria
[ Bailii ]
 
H.M. Dawson (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1980] UKPC 2
11 Feb 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
R. E. Rogers and Others (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1980] UKPC 3
11 Feb 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Max Cooper v The Council of The City of Sydney (New South Wales)) [1980] UKPC 6
4 Mar 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Trevor Stone v The Queen (Jamaica) [1980] UKPC 5
4 Mar 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ashook Dwarkanath Laud v The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1980] UKPC 7
4 Mar 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
T. H. Bushby and Another v Sydney Blair Morris and Others (New South Wales) [1980] UKPC 8
17 Mar 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanley Yeung Kai Yung and Another v The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (Hong Kong) [1980] UKPC 9
17 Mar 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson and Company Limited Robinson and Company (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v Collector of Land Revenue, Singapore -And Cross-Appeal (Singapore) [1980] UKPC 10
20 Mar 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Far East Hairgoods Manufactory Company Limited v Grand Union Insurance Company Limited (Hong Kong) [1980] UKPC 11
16 Apr 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt
1 May 1980

Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ
Commonwealth, Negligence
(High Court of Australia) Mason J: 'In deciding whether there has been a breach of the duty of care the tribunal of fact must first ask itself whether a reasonable man in the defendant's position would have foreseen that his conduct involved a risk of injury to the plaintiff or to a class of persons including the plaintiff. If the answer be in the affirmative, it is then for the tribunal of fact to determine what a reasonable man would do by way of response to the risk. The perception of the reasonable man's response calls for a consideration of the magnitude of the risk and the degree of probability of its occurrence, along with the expense, difficulty and inconvenience of taking alleviating action and any other conflicting responsibilities which the defendant may have. It is only when these matters are balanced out that the tribunal of fact can confidently assert what is the standard of response to be ascribed to the reasonable man placed in the defendant's position. The considerations to which I have referred indicate that a risk of injury which is remote in the sense that it is extremely unlikely to occur may nevertheless constitute a foreseeable risk. A risk which is not far-fetched or fanciful is real and therefore foreseeable. But, as we have seen, the existence of a foreseeable risk of injury does not of itself dispose of the question of breach of duty. The magnitude of the risk and its degree of probability remain to be considered with other relevant factors.' Held: 'Lying at the heart of this matter, however, is the necessity to ensure, as far as possible, that consumers are not unnecessarily or, through no fault of their own, unknowingly exposed to the risk of injury or other adverse consequences being suffered by reason of their use of products available to them in the marketplace.' and 'As a general proposition it appears to me to be obvious that where possible consequences of the contraction of a condition include death, even though the risk of any contraction may be very small, a potential purchaser is, at least, entitled to know of the existence of that risk and to be able to choose whether or not it will be accepted.'
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Malayan Plant (Pte) Limited v Moscow Narodny Bank Limited (Singapore) [1980] UKPC 13
8 May 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Euro-Pacific Finance Corporation Limited v Leo Arthur Hielscher (Queensland) [1980] UKPC 12
8 May 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Aylmer James Compton v The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1980] UKPC 19
8 May 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Malayawata Steel Berhad v The Government of The Federation of Malaysia and Another (Malaysia) [1980] UKPC 15
12 May 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cornelius Bobb v Rosetta Jaisingh (The Personal Representative of Anthony G. Singh, Deceased) and Another (Trinidad and Tobago) [1980] UKPC 14
12 May 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
K. A. Archer and Others (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc (Oral)) [1980] UKPC 22
19 May 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
David E. Gillman (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc (Reasons)) [1980] UKPC 25
24 May 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Oh Hiam (F) (Since Deceased) and Others v Tham Kong (Malaysia) [1980] UKPC 18
3 Jun 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn. Bhd v Non-Metalic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union and Others [1980] UKPC 21; [1980] 3 WLR 318; [1980] 2 All ER 689; [1981] AC 363
24 Jun 1980
PC
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Commonwealth, Constitutional
Malaysia - A subject's right of recourse to the courts is not to be taken away except by clear words. Where a statute provides that a decision is ‘final', it is ordinarily taken to preclude a right of appeal except in cases where the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or otherwise such that its decision is a nullity.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said: "[T]he final words ‘quashed or called in question in any court of law' seemed to their Lordships to be clearly directed to certiorari. ‘Quashed' is the word ordinarily used to describe the result of an order of certiorari, and it is not commonly used in connection with other forms of procedure (except in the quite different sense of quashing a sentence after conviction on a criminal charge). If ‘quashed' were for some reason not enough, the expression ‘called in question in any court of law' is in their Lordships opinion amply wide enough to include certiorari procedure."
[ Bailii ]
 
Bankers Trust International Limited v Todd Shipyards Corporation (Singapore) [1980] UKPC 20
24 Jun 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty. Limited v Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) Pty. Limited; PC 10-Jul-1980 - [1981] 1 WLR 138; [1980] UKPC 23; [1980] 3 All ER 257; [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 317
 
Noel Patrick Burns v The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1980] UKPC 24
17 Jul 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Howe Yoon Chong v The Chief Assessor, Property Tax, Singapore (Singapore) [1980] UKPC 26
24 Jul 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Patrick Chokolingo v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1980] UKPC 27
13 Oct 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Reverend Dennis Thomas Crossley and Finchampstead Parochial Church Council (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1980] UKPC 28
13 Oct 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tong Lee Hwa v Lee Yoke San (Malaysia) [1980] UKPC 29
13 Oct 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Daiman Developments Sdn. Bhd. V. Mathew Lui Chin Teck v Daiman Developments Sdn. Bhd. V. Loh Sew Wee (Consolidated By Order Dated 4Th February 1979) (Malaysia) [1980] UKPC 31
13 Oct 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd; PC 13-Oct-1980 - [1981] 1 WLR 193; [1981] RPC 429; [1980] UKPC 30
 
Chin Ah Loy v Attorney General (Singapore) [1980] UKPC 33
15 Oct 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cosmic Insurance Corporation Limited v Khoo Chiang Poh [1980] UKPC 34
15 Oct 1980
PC

Commonwealth
(Singapore)
[ Bailii ]
 
Ong Ah Chun v The Public Prosecuto; Koh Chai Cheng vThe Public Prosecutor [1980] UKPC 32
15 Oct 1980
PC

Commonwealth
(Singapore)
[ Bailii ]
 
John Brian Lowe v General Optical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Optical Council) [1980] UKPC 35
12 Nov 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Saminathan S/O Vanathan v Pappa D/O Thoppan (Malaysia) [1980] UKPC 36
17 Nov 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ragho Prasad (S/O Ram Autar Rao) v The Queen (Figi) [1980] UKPC 37
17 Nov 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cheung So Yin Kay v The Chartered Bank Hong Kong Trustee Limited (Hong Kong) [1980] UKPC 38
25 Nov 1980
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Karpenko v Paroian, Courey, Cohen and Houston; 1981 - (1981) 117 DLR (3d) 383

 
 Anastasio v Anastasio; 1981 - (1981) FLC 91-093
 
Jackson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 36
1981

Hunt J
Commonwealth, Defamation
(New South Wales) Discussing the provisions of the NSW Defamation Act 1974 section 16, Hunt J said: "It is, in my view, basic to the scheme of section 16 that both of the imputations in question (that is, the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff and the contextual imputation pleaded by the defendant) must be conveyed by the matter complained of at the same time and that each must differ in substance from the other." As to an allegation suggesting suspicion of criminal conduct, he said: "An easy example is the publication which describes the plaintiff (falsely) with having been charged with a criminal offence and which, by reason of additional material, also imputes (truly) that he is guilty of such offence. If the plaintiff sued and complained only of the imputation conveyed by the assertion that he had been charged with that offence, it would be open to the defendant, in accordance with s 16, to plead the contextual imputation that the plaintiff was in fact guilty of such an offence and that such contextual imputation was substantially true . . [T]he defendant would succeed in the action complaining of the publication of the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff (and based upon the untrue assertion that he had been charged) if the jury were satisfied that, by reason of the substantial truth of the defendant’s contextual imputation, the untrue imputation pleaded by the plaintiff did not further injure his reputation.
In coming to that decision, the jury would be required to weigh or to measure the relative worth or value of the several imputations pleaded by both the plaintiff and the defendant. There is little doubt that in this example the jury would find that, by reason of the substantial truth of the contextual imputation pleaded by the defendant, that pleaded by the plaintiff did not further injure his reputation.
At the other end of the scale is the publication which describes the plaintiff (falsely) as a blackmailer and (truly) as having unlawfully remained in the country on an expired visa. If the plaintiff sued and complained only of the assertion that he was a blackmailer, a defence of contextual truth based upon the imputation that the plaintiff was an illegal immigrant would be doomed to failure. It would, in my view, be open to the trial judge in such circumstances to take such a defence away from the jury because there would be no rational basis upon which the jury could find in favour of the defendant.
In between these two extremes there must, of course, be many degrees. If the publication described the plaintiff (falsely) as a share swindler and (truly) as a rapist, the jury could well have considerable difficulty in weighing or measuring the relative worth or value of the two imputations conveyed. In those circumstances, it seems that the trial judge would be obliged to leave the issue to the jury."
1 Citers



 
 Frater v The Queen (Note); PC 1981 - [1981] 1 WLR 1468

 
 CREEDNZ Inc v The Governor General; 1981 - [1981] 1 NZLR 172

 
 Feuer Leather Corporation v Frank Jonstone and Sons; 1981 - (1981) Com LR 251
 
The Attorney General v Ho Pui-Yiu (Hong Kong) [1981] UKPC 2
12 Jan 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Charles Woodrow Wright v The Gleaner Company Limited [1981] UKPC 1
12 Jan 1981
PC

Commonwealth
(Jamaica)
[ Bailii ]
 
Skelton v Richard Hogarth Maduro (Junior) and 2 Others v Richard Hogarth Maduro (Junior) and 13 Others v Ellis Skelton [1981] UKPC 5
28 Jan 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
S.C. Jackson and Another (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1981] UKPC 6
28 Jan 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lilley v The Public Trustee of The Dominion of New Zealand [1981] UKPC 4
28 Jan 1981
PC

Commonwealth
(New Zealand)
[ Bailii ]
 
N.T.S. Arumugam Pillai v The Director of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 3
28 Jan 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Norah Lawford and Another (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1981] UKPC 7
10 Feb 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Teoh Chai Siok v The Director General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 8
11 Feb 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Shyben A. Madi and Another v C. L. Carayol (Gambia) [1981] UKPC 9
17 Feb 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dunlop v The Council of The Municipality of Woollahra [1981] UKPC 10
28 Feb 1981
PC

Commonwealth
(New South Wales)
[ Bailii ]
 
Pualine Barnes v Trade Credits Limited (New South Wales) [1981] UKPC 11
4 Mar 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Limited v Paul Leslie Feenan and Others (New South Wales) [1981] UKPC 12
5 Mar 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
John Albert Carbery and Others v Harry James and Others (New South Wales) [1981] UKPC 13
5 Mar 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Harry Tong Lee Hwa v Yong Kah Chin (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 15
23 Mar 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hang Wah Chong Investment Company Limited v The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1981] UKPC 16
23 Mar 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gordon Grant and Company (1965) Limited v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1981] UKPC 14
23 Mar 1981
PC

Commonwealth
Trinidad and Tobago
[ Bailii ]
 
Seeraj Ajodha and Others v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [1981] UKPC 17
1 Apr 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lahad Datu Timber Sendirian Berhad v The Director General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 18
29 Apr 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Desmond Grant and 9 Others v The Director General of Public Prosecutions and The Attorney General (Jamaica) [1981] UKPC 20
29 Apr 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Leon Stewart Paul and Another v Anthony Howard Rendell (Australia) [1981] UKPC 19
29 Apr 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Moon Yik Company Limited and Another v The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1981] UKPC 21
18 May 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chin Choy Alias Chin Chong Kim and Others v The Collector of Stamp Duties (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 22
8 Jun 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Haw Tua Tau and Others v The Public Prosecutor (Reasons) (Singapore) [1981] UKPC 23
22 Jun 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Alexander and Mitchell v The State; PC 22-Jun-1981 - [1981] UKPC 24
 
Sundran Jaykumal v The Public Prosecutor (Singapore) [1981] UKPC 26
14 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chandrika Prasad S/O Guddu Lal v Gulzara Singh S/O Hari Singh and Othes (Figi) [1981] UKPC 25
16 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Aylmer James Crompton v The General Medical Council (The Proffesional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1981] UKPC 31
27 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Endell Thomas v The Attorney General (Trinidad and Tobago) [1981] UKPC 28
27 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hoe Joo Sawmills (Sued As A Firm) v Sigma (Air Conditioning) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 33
28 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Jeffrey Christopher Astwood v Joyce Margaret Astwood [1981] UKPC 29
28 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth
(Bermuda)
[ Bailii ]
 
Raj Kumari 9D/O Lakhan Singh and Another v The Public Trutee of Fiji Representing The Estate of Ammai (D/O Nag Reddy) Deceased (Figi) [1981] UKPC 32
28 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Addonton Andy Thomas and Kirklon Paul v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [1981] UKPC 27
28 Jul 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Perdana Properties Bhd. v United Orient Leasing Company Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 38
6 Oct 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tsang Ping U Nam v The Queen (Hong Kong) [1981] UKPC 37
6 Oct 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Eric Frater v The Queen (Jamaica) [1981] UKPC 35
6 Oct 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Neville Nembhard v The Queen (Jamaica) [1981] UKPC 36
6 Oct 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohammed B.A. Bensouda v Roxy Cinemas Limited (Gambia) [1981] UKPC 39
23 Nov 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilson Parking (N.S.W.) Pty. Limited v The Federal Miscellanious Workers Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch and Others (New South Wales) [1981] UKPC 40
15 Dec 1981
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Commonwealth v Introvigne [1982] HCA 40
1982

Gibbs CJ, Mason, Murphy and Brennan JJ
Commonwealth, Negligence
(High Court of Australia) A pupil was injured when he swung, whilst skylarking unsupervised, from a halyard attached to a flagpole in the school quadrangle. The halyard was in turn connected to a pulley which was part of a truck attached to the top of the flagpole. The truck, weighing about 7 kilograms, was dislodged by the pupil swinging, fell, and caused severe head injuries. The injury was said to be caused by the negligent failure of school staff to supervise the pupils, as well as the state of the premises. The members of staff were employees of the state, yet the Commonwealth of Australia was sued. Held: A school may owe a non-delegable duty of care to its pupils.
Mason J. said: "There are strong reasons for saying that it is appropriate that a school authority comes under a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken of pupils attending the school. This was the view expressed by Kitto J. in Ramsay v. Larsen (1964) 111 CLR, at p 28[4]. The immaturity and inexperience of the pupils and their propensity for mischief suggest that there should be a special responsibility on a school authority to care for their safety, one that goes beyond a mere vicarious liability for the acts and omissions of its servants" and "It was a duty to ensure that reasonable care was taken for the safety of the pupil which was breached in the circumstances of this case, in the two respects already mentioned. It was, as I see it, a duty directly owed by the Commonwealth for breach of which it is liable. It was not a case of vicarious liability for the omissions of the acting principal and the members of his staff, though had it been necessary to do so, the Commonwealth might have been found liable on this score."
Murphy J said: "1. The Commonwealth assumed the role of conducting a school; it is immaterial whether it was required to do so by Act of Parliament. It became liable for damage caused by any lack of reasonable care of the students or pupils placed in its care. In terms of the prevailing concepts of duty, the Commonwealth became fixed with certain non-delegable duties:
(1). To take all reasonable care to provide suitable and safe premises. The standard of care must take into account the well-known mischievous propensities of children, especially in relation to attractions and lures with obvious or latent hazards.
(2). To take all reasonable care to provide an adequate system to ensure that no child is exposed to any unnecessary risk of injury; and to take all reasonable care to see that the system is carried out.
2. The Commonwealth also became vicariously liable to pupils and parents for the acts and omissions of the teaching and other staff (whether or not these were supplied by another entity or agency).
3. The notion that a school teacher is in loco parentis does not fully state the legal responsibility of a school, which in many respects goes beyond that of a parent. A school should not be equated to a home. Often hazards exist in a home which it would be unreasonable to allow in a school. A better analogy is with a factory or other undertaking such as a hospital. Parents and pupils have in practice no choice of the classmates or other students. Injury occasionally occurs through foolish or sometimes malicious acts of other students. The school has the right to control what occurs at school, just as an employer has the right to control what happens in its undertaking. Where a student is injured by the negligence of another student (and perhaps by act or omission which if it were that of a person of full capacity would be negligent) without breach of personal duty by those conducting the school, and without act or omission by those for whom otherwise it is vicariously liable, it may be that the loss is best spread by treating the body conducting the school as vicariously liable just as an employer would be for its employee's acts or omissions; but it is unnecessary to decide this.
4. In this case the damage to the plaintiff may be attributed to causes for which the Commonwealth is liable, unsafe premises and lack of supervision of the children. It is enough that Introvigne's injuries were due to the inadequate system of supervision and care. The system did not provide for sufficient staff to exercise proper supervision over the children in the playground. As well, there was a failure to ensure that the system was carried out. The departure from the system by the teachers was understandable because of the death of the school principal, but this does not excuse the breach by the Commonwealth of this non-delegable duty."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Ross v Costigan; 1982 - [1982] 41 ALR 319

 
 Henderson v Volk; 1982 - (1982) 35 OR (2d) 379

 
 Elston v Dore; 1982 - (1982) ALR 577

 
 RCA Corporation v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd; 1982 - [1982] RPC 91

 
 Dillon v The Queen; PC 25-Jan-1982 - [1982] AC 484; [1982] UKPC 1a
 
Gan Khay Beng and Others v Ng Lit Cheng Alias Ng Yam Chee and Others (Malaysia) [1982] UKPC 2
2 Feb 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Reference re : Amendment to the Canadian Constitution [1982] 2 SCR 791; 1982 CanLII 218 (SCC)
9 Feb 1982


Commonwealth, Constitutional
Supreme Court of Canada - Application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissing applicant's application to intervene relating to a reference ordered by the Government of Quebec. Application dismisse
[ Canlii ]
 
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore) [1982] UKPC 3
24 Feb 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wong Ah Suan v Sarawak Electricity Supply Corporation, The Government of The State of Sarawak (Malaysia) [1982] UKPC 4
3 Mar 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tan Choon Chye v Singapore Society of Accountants (Singapore) [1982] UKPC 5
3 Mar 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
A.M.P. Fire and General Insurance Co. Limited v Marinus Miltenburg (Cross Appeal) (New South Wales) [1982] UKPC 6
9 Mar 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mercantile Credits Limited v John Nicholas Comblas and Another (South Australia) [1982] UKPC 7
23 Mar 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Eng Chuan and Company (A Firm) and Others v Four Seas Communications Bank Limited (Singapore) [1982] UKPC 8
29 Mar 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Loke Hong Kee (S) Pte. Limited v United Overseas Land Limited (Singapore) [1982] UKPC 9
31 Mar 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Zaibun Sa Binti Syed Ahmad v Loh Koon Moy (F) and Lam Wai Kee [1982] UKPC 12
20 Apr 1982
PC

Commonwealth
Malaysia
[ Bailii ]
 
David Ng Pak Shing and Others v Lee Ing Chee Also Known As Lee Hai Hock and Others [1982] UKPC 10
20 Apr 1982
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Reid v Reid [1982] 1 WLR 1036; [1982] 3 All ER 328; [1982] UKPC 11
20 Apr 1982
PC

Commonwealth, Family
New Zealand
[ Bailii ]
 
Haron Bin Mohd. Zaid v Central Securities (Holdings) Berhad (Malaysia) [1982] UKPC 13
26 Apr 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Effie Ashworth v Standard Chartered Bank (Isle of Man) Limited (Formally Julian S. Hodge Bank (Isle of Man) Limited) (Isle of Man) [1982] UKPC 14
12 May 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Phoenix Heights v Lee Kay Guan, Ong Kim Liong (M.W) (Singapore) [1982] UKPC 17
26 May 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Central Electricity Board of Mauritius v Bata Shoe Company (Mauritius) Limited and Another (Mauritius) [1982] UKPC 18
26 May 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Garden City Development Berhad v Collector of Land Revenue, Federal Territory (Malaysia) [1982] UKPC 15
26 May 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
F. Plan Limited v Tiffany Glass Limited (Trinidad and Tobago) [1982] UKPC 16
26 May 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chooramun Jhoboo v Elias Ibrahaim Coowar (Mauritius) [1982] UKPC 19
9 Jun 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kong Ming Bank Berhad v Sim Siok Eng (Malaysia) [1982] UKPC 20
14 Jun 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Deb Narayan v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1982] UKPC 21
16 Jun 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Aik San Realty Limited and Others v The Attorney U General (Hong Kong) [1982] UKPC 22
28 Jun 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Noel Riley and Others v The Attorney U General and Another (Jamaica) [1982] UKPC 23
28 Jun 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
H.L. Wee v The Law Society of Singapore (Singapore) [1982] UKPC 25
13 Jul 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gabriel Marra and Another v J.B. Astwood and Son Limited (Bermuda) [1982] UKPC 24
14 Jul 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Edouard Le Scroog v The General Optical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Optical Council) [1982] UKPC 27
21 Jul 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
General Accident Fire and Assurance Corporation Limited and Sentry Assurance Limited v The Commissioner of Pay U Roll Tax (Consolidated Appeals) [1982] UKPC 26
21 Jul 1982
PC

Commonwealth
(New South Wales)
[ Bailii ]
 
Robin A. Cooper v Victor Charles and Others (West Indies) [1982] UKPC 28
26 Jul 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 The Attorney General v The Director of Public Prosecutions; PC 4-Oct-1982 - [1982] UKPC 34
 
Yew Bon Tew Also Known As Yong Boon and Another v Kenderaan Bas Mara (Malaysia) [1982] UKPC 35
7 Oct 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara [1983] 1 AC 553; [1982] 3 All ER 833; [1982] 3 WLR 1026
7 Oct 1982
PC
Lord Brightman, Lord Fraser of Tulleybelton, Lord Scarman, Kord Kwry, Lord Bridge of Harwich
Constitutional, Limitation, Commonwealth
(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent's bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue under the 1974 Act. Held: The claim was time barred. The respondent's right to rely upon entitlement to plead the twelve-month time bar constituted an accrued right, and the Act was not to be construed retrospectively depriving it of its defence unless such a construction was unavoidable, which it was not.
Apart from the provisions of the interpretation statutes, there is at common law a prima facie rule of construction that a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively so as to impair an existing right or obligation unless that result is unavoidable on the language used. A statute is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past. Whether a statute is to be construed in a retrospective sense, and if so to what extent, depends on the intention of the legislature as expressed in the wording of the statute, having regard to the normal canons of construction and to the relevant provisions of any interpretation statute.
Lord Brightman said: "Apart from the provisions of the interpretation statutes, there is at common law a prima facie rule of construction that a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively so as to impair an existing right or obligation unless that result is unavoidable on the language used. A statute is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past." As to whether a right to rely upon a statutory limitation provision of that type was a vested right he answered "yes", citing Maxwell v Murphy. The respondent had acquired an "accrued right" on the failure by the appellants to commence an action within the specified period. The proper approach to the construction of the 1948 Ordinance was to see whether the statute, if applied retrospectively, would impair existing rights and obligations. An accrued right to plead a time bar, which is acquired after the lapse of the statutory period, is in every sense a right, even though it arises under an Act which is procedural. It is a right which is not to be taken away by conferring on the statute a retrospective operation, unless such a construction is unavoidable."
He concluded: "In the opinion of their Lordships an accrued entitlement on the part of a person to plead the lapse of a limitation period as an answer to the future institution of proceedings is just as much a 'right' as any other statutory or contractual provision against a future suit."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Leung Chow Public Car Company (As A Firm) v The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1982] UKPC 36
7 Oct 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pl.Ar Letchumanan Chettiar Alias Ar. Lakshmanan Alias Ana Runa Leyna Lakshmanan Chettiar v Ar.Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar [1982] UKPC 39
15 Oct 1982
PC

Commonwealth
Malaysia
[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Estate and Gift Duties v Fiji Resorts Limited (Fiji) [1982] UKPC 37
18 Oct 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lutchmeeparsad Badry v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Mauritius) [1982] UKPC 40
15 Nov 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lutchmeeparsad Badry v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1982] UKPC 1; [1983] 2 AC 297; (Appeals Nos 4, 5 and 6 of 1981)
15 Nov 1982
PC
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone), Lord Scarman, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman
Constitutional, Commonwealth, Contempt of Court
(Mauritius) The applicant appealed three counts of contempt of court, arising from speeches made by him in the political debate. He had been a minister, but was subject to investigation for fraud. To found a appeal he had to show some blatant or significant disregard or breach of legal process, or injustice. The board do not sit as a criminal appeal court. Held: It was not possible to take any interpretation of some of the words used which did not amount to an attack on the integrity of the judicial system, but other charges were not such an attack.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Standard Portland Cement Company Pty. Limited and Another v Colin Elliott (New South Wales) [1982] UKPC 41
22 Nov 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Carol Morin v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Jamaica) [1982] UKPC 42
6 Dec 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Clive Malcom v Rex Knight and Another (Jamaica) [1982] UKPC 43
7 Dec 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Newmount Propriety Limited and Others v Laverton Nickel N.L. and Others (New South Wales) [1982] UKPC 44
13 Dec 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kaolim Private Limited v United Overseas Land Limited (Singapore) [1982] UKPC 45
13 Dec 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Beneficial Finance Corporation Limited (New South Wales) [1982] UKPC 46
13 Dec 1982
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Selvanayagam v University of the West Indies [1983] 1 WLR 585; [1983] 1 All ER 824
1983
PC

Commonwealth, Damages
Having claimed damages for a personal injury, the plaintiff refused a curative operation. As a diabetic he said he faced additional risks. Held: A plaintiff who rejects medical advice to undergo treatment must discharge a burden of showing that his refusal was reasonable in the light of the duty on him to mitigate his losses. In this case his refusal had been reasonable. The case was remitted to the local court to re-assess the damages.
1 Citers


 
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 46 ALR 402
1983

Mason J, Deane J
Commonwealth, Contract, Equity
(Australia) "it is necessary for the plaintiff who seeks relief to establish unconscionable conduct, namely that unconscientious advantage has been taken of his disabling condition or circumstances" Deane J: "Unconscionable dealing looks to the conduct of the stronger party in attempting to enforce, or obtain the benefit of, a dealing with a person under a special disability in circumstances where it is not consistent with equity or good conscience that he should do so. The adverse circumstances which may constitute special disability for the purposes of the principles relating to relief against unconscionable conduct may take a wide variety of forms and are not susceptible to being comprehensively catalogued."
1 Citers


 
Gartside v Sheffield Young and Ellis [1983] NZLR 37
1983

Cooke J
Professional Negligence, Commonwealth, Wills and Probate
(New Zealand) The court discussed the potential liability of a solicitor having failed to prepare an effective will: "To deny an effective remedy in a plain case would seem to imply a refusal to acknowledge the solicitor's professional role in the community. In practice the community relies upon solicitors (or statutory officers with similar functions) tp prepare effective wills."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Soenen v Director of Edmonton Remand Centre; 1983 - (1983) 35 CR (3d) 206
 
Allied Finance and Investments Ltd v Haddow and Co [1983] NZLR 22
1983

Cooke J
Commonwealth, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The fact that a certificate is sent by a solicitor to a lender confirming the giving of independent advice and that guarantors had signed the guarantee voluntarily may place a duty of care on the solicitor in relation to the lender.
Cooke J said: "the relationship between two solicitors acting for their respective clients does not normally of itself impose a duty of care on one solicitor to the client of the other. Normally the relationship is not sufficiently proximate. Each solicitor is entitled to expect that the other party will look to his own solicitor for advice and protection."
1 Citers



 
 Re McCutcheon and City of Toronto; 1983 - (1983) 147 DLR (3d) 193
 
The Owners of The Ship August 8th v Costas Bachas (Singapore) [1983] UKPC 1
11 Jan 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Merchant Credit Private Limited v Industrial and Commercial Realty Company Limited (Singapore) [1983] UKPC 2
27 Jan 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Syarikat Bunga Raya-Timor Jauh Sdn. Bhd.And Another v Tractors Malaysia Berhad (Malaysia) [1983] UKPC 3
27 Jan 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Monvia Motorship Corporation v Keppel Shipyard (Private) Limited (Singapore) [1983] UKPC 4
1 Feb 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ponnmampalam Selvanayagam v The University of The West Indies (Trinidad and Tobago) [1983] UKPC 5
14 Feb 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Attorney General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu; PC 21-Feb-1983 - [1983] 2 AC 629; [1983] UKPC 2; [1983] UKPC 7; [1983] 2 All ER 346; [1983] 2 WLR 735
 
Alexandrine Austin and Others v Gene Hart (Trinidad and Tobago) [1983] UKPC 6
21 Feb 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hewitt v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639; [1983] HCA 7
15 Mar 1983


Commonwealth, Contract, Insolvency
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Lien - Equitable - Contract for provision of work, labour and materials - Progress payments - Whether lien obtained over unfinished object - Whether dependent upon right to specific enforcement of contract.
Contract - Character - Work, labour and materials or sale of goods.
Bankruptcy - Preference - Contract for prefabrication of house - Risk with builder until practical completion - Property not to pass until full payment of price - Progress payments - Builder placed in liquidation before completion - Prior agreement for purchaser to pay for work done after last progress payment and take unfinished house - Whether preference - Companies Act 1961 (W.A.), section 293 - Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s. 122.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Captain Kamarul Azman Bin Jamaluddin v Lieutenant Colonel Wan Abdul Majid Bin Abdullah (President, General Court-Martial) and 4 Others [1983] UKPC 9
21 Mar 1983
PC

Commonwealth, Armed Forces
Malaysia
[ Bailii ]
 
Kim Guan and Company Sendirian Berhad v Yong Nyee Fan and Sons Sendirian Berhad (Malaysia) [1983] UKPC 8
21 Mar 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
William David Wiseman v The Canterbury Bye-Products Company Limited (New Zealand) [1983] UKPC 12
12 Apr 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sang Lee Investment Co. Ltd v Wing Kwai Investment Co. Ltd and Another (Hong Kong) [1983] UKPC 11
12 Apr 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Captain Geoffrey Hargreaves and Others (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1983] UKPC 10
12 Apr 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Income Tax v K. P. Chantani (Jamaica) [1983] UKPC 14
14 Apr 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Brian Ronald Mcdonald v The Queen (New Zealand) [1983] UKPC 13
14 Apr 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Mightysteam Limited (Hong Kong) [1983] UKPC 15
9 May 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kandasami S/O Kaliappa Gounder v Mohd Mustafa S/O Seeni Mohd [1983] UKPC 16
16 May 1983
PC

Commonwealth
(Malaysia)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association; 20-May-1983 - (1983) 151 CLR 288; (1983) 47 ALR 45; (1983) 57 ALJR 420
 
Attorney General v Firebird Limited (Hong Kong) [1983] UKPC 17
23 May 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ar. Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar v A.R. Lakshmanan Chettiar Alias Pl.Ar.L. Letchumanan Chettiar Alias Ana Runa Leyna Lakshmanan Chettiar [1983] UKPC 18
16 Jun 1983
PC

Commonwealth
(Malaysia)
[ Bailii ]
 
Javan Newbold v The Queen (Bahamas) [1983] UKPC 20
21 Jun 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Cheng Yick Chi and Others (Hong Kong) [1983] UKPC 19
21 Jun 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mak Yui Ming and Others v Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1983] UKPC 21
27 Jun 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tan Chwee Ang v Hsia Kho Ing (Singapore) [1983] UKPC 22
7 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lam Wai Hwa and Another v Toh Yee Sum and Others (Malaysia) [1983] UKPC 25
18 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club v Miers [1983] UKPC 24
18 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth
(Hong Kong)
[ Bailii ]
 
K. Ratnasingam v Kow Ah Dek Alias Kow Lian Poi and Another (Malaysia) [1983] UKPC 23
18 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Helen Margaret Hogan and Others v Brian Robert Hogan and Another [1983] UKPC 26
20 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth
New South Wales
[ Bailii ]
 
Narwich Pty. Limited v The Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (New South Wales) [1983] UKPC 37
20 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen and Others (Hong Kong) [1983] UKPC 28
25 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Castle Insurance Company Limited (Formally Pacific and Orient Underwriters (H.K.) Limited) and 84 Others v Hong Kong Islands Shipping Co. Limited (And Cross-Appeal) (Hong Kong) [1983] UKPC 27
25 Jul 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Savitri Lalla (Representing The Estate of Poochoon Harracksingh) v Baby Deosaran (Trinidad and Tobago) [1983] UKPC 30
17 Oct 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Honourable Thomas Peter Thomas Mahon v Air New Zealand Limited and Others (New Zealand) [1983] UKPC 29
20 Oct 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120
27 Oct 1983

Wilson and Deane JJ
Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical
(High Court of Australia) Meaning of religion - scientology church application for tax exemption. The trend is towards a "newer, more expansive, reading" of religion. However "Religious conviction is not a solvent of legal obligation."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
The Commissioner of Income Tax v Esperance Company Limited [1983] UKPC 31
7 Nov 1983
PC

Commonwealth, Income Tax
Mauritius
[ Bailii ]
 
Ram Pratap Saxena v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1983] UKPC 33
16 Nov 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
D. Goodall Esquire (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1983] UKPC 35
21 Nov 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Paul Douglas Lowe, Herbert Monty Lowe and Keith Lowe v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (New Zealand) [1983] UKPC 34
21 Nov 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The River Estates Sdn. Bhd. v The Director General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1983] UKPC 36
5 Dec 1983
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood; 14-Dec-1983 - [1984] 1 NZLR 525
 
Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd v Johnson Stokes and Master (1983) 80 LSG 3163; [1984] 2 WLR 1; [1983-84] ANZ Conv R 640; [1984] AC 296; [1983] UKPC 32
1984
PC
Diplock, Elwyn-Jones, Roskill, Brandon of Oakbrook, Brightman LL
Professional Negligence, Legal Professions, Commonwealth
(Hong Kong) The defendant's solicitors completed a mortgage in "Hong Kong style" rather than in the old fashioned English style. Completion in Hong Kong style provides for money to be paid over against an undertaking by the solicitors for the borrowers subsequently to hand over the executed documents. This allowed a dishonest solicitor for the borrower to abscond with an advance without providing the documents. Held: Even though completion in Hong Kong style was almost universally adopted in Hong Kong and was in accordance with a body of professional opinion there, the defendant's solicitors were liable for negligence because there was an obvious risk which could have been guarded against. Thus, the body of professional opinion, though almost universally held, was not reasonable or responsible. In medical negligence, in cases of diagnosis and treatment there are cases where, despite a body of professional opinion sanctioning the defendant's conduct, the defendant can properly be held liable for negligence. Nevertheless, it will very seldom be right for a judge to reach the conclusion that views generally held by a competent medical expert are unreasonable.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong; PC 1984 - [1985] AC 1; [1984] 2 All ER 503; [1984] 3 WLR 437; [1984] Crim LR 479; (1984) 80 Cr App R 194; [1985] LRC (Crim) 439
 
Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz Times, 08 July 1981
1984
ChD
Staughton J
Commonwealth
The New Zealand government sought the return of a Maori carving which had been bought by the defendant after it had been illegally exported from New Zealand. The defendant replied that an English court should not itself enforce a foreign penal provision, the Historic Articles Act 1962 of New Zealand. Held: The application succeeded. Under the rules of English private international law, this was neither a penal nor a revenue law and was accordingly enforceable by an English court. Order accordingly.
1 Citers


 
Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414
1984

Deane J
Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
The court approved "the adaptation of the traditional doctrine of passing off to meet new circumstances involving the deceptive or confusing use of names, descriptive terms or other indicia to persuade purchasers or customers to believe that the goods or services have an association, quality or endorsement which belongs or would belong to goods or services of, or associated with, another or others."
1 Citers


 
Rahemtulla v Vanfed Credit Union [1984] 3 WWR 296
1984

McLachlin J
Commonwealth, Torts - Other
(British Columbia Supreme Court) The plaintiff had been harassed at work, falsely accused of theft in threatening circumstances and summarily dismissed without proper cause in a humiliating fashion. The defendant submitted that to be liable for wilful infliction of nervous shock its conduct must be outrageous. Held: McLachlin J said: "This submission appears to be founded on the distinction drawn in American cases between mere insult, which is not actionable, and 'extreme and outrageous conduct' which is: Linden: Canadian Tort Law (3rd ed) (1982), p 48. While this distinction appears not to have been expressly adopted in the Canadian and Commonwealth cases, the conduct considered in the leading authorities such as Wilkinson v Downton, and Janvier v Sweeney, was in fact flagrant and extreme. Moreover, it is difficult to accept that the courts should protect persons from every practical joke or unkind comment . . assuming" that only flagrant and extreme conduct inflicting mental suffering was actionable, the defendant's conduct could be so described. She identified the two further ingredients of the tort as being: that the conduct was "plainly calculated to produce some effect of the kind which was produced" (quoting from Wright J's judgment in Wilkinson v Downton), and that the conduct produced provable illness. She found that the conduct was "plainly calculated" to cause profound distress because it was clearly foreseeable.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Doyle v Mount Kidston Mining and Exploration Property Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 386
1984

McPherson J
Agency, Commonwealth
(Queensland) McPherson J considered an estate agent's contract: "it would have been quite artificial to suppose that the parties intended that the agent should earn his commission simply by finding an individual who, independently of any further action by the agent, later agreed to buy the subject property."
1 Citers


 
Perka v The Queen [1984] 2 SCR 232; 13 DLR (4th) 1
1984

Dickson J, Wilson J
Crime, Commonwealth
(Canada) The court analysed the defence of necessity. The concept of necessity is used as an excuse for conduct which would otherwise be criminal. The defence arose where, realistically, the individual had no choice, where the action was "remorselessly compelled by normal human instincts", and (Dickson J) "I agree with this formulation of the rationale for excuses in the criminal law. In my view this rationale extends beyond specific codified excuses and embraces the residual excuse known as the defence of necessity. At the heart of this defence is the perceived injustice of punishing violations of (Canada) The law in circumstances in which the person had no other viable or reasonable choice available; the act was wrong but it is excused because it was realistically unavoidable." The involuntariness of the actor's conduct "is measured on the basis of society's expectation of appropriate and normal resistance to pressure" and "If the defence of necessity is to form a valid and consistent part of our criminal law it must, as has been universally recognised, be strictly controlled and scrupulously limited to situations that correspond to its underlying rationale." Wilson J: "... The ethical considerations of the "charitable and the good" must be kept analytically distinct from duties imposed by law. Accordingly, where necessity is invoked as a justification for violation of the law, the justification must, in my view, be restricted to situations where the accused's act constitutes the discharge of a duty recognised by law. The justification is not, however, established simply by showing a conflict of legal duties. The rule of proportionality is central to the evaluation of a justification premised on two conflicting duties since the defence rests on the rightfulness of the accused's choice of one over the other."
1 Citers


 
Kak Loui Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178; [1984] HCA 36
1984

Gibbs C.J.(1), Murphy(2), Brennan(3), Deane(4) and Dawson(5) JJ
Commonwealth, Company
(High Court of Australia) The fundamental rule that obliged fiduciaries to account for personal benefit or gain had two separate themes: "The variations between more precise formulations of the principle governing the liability to account are largely the result of the fact that what is conveniently regarded as the one "fundamental rule" embodies two themes. The first is that which appropriates for the benefit of the person to whom the fiduciary duty is owed any benefit or gain obtained or received by the fiduciary in circumstances where there existed a conflict of personal interest and fiduciary duty or a significant possibility of such conflict: the objective is to preclude the fiduciary from being swayed by considerations of personal interest. The second is that which requires the fiduciary to account for any benefit or gain obtained or received by reason of or by use of his fiduciary position or of opportunity or knowledge resulting from it: the objective is to preclude the fiduciary from actually misusing his position for his personal advantage." and 'it is immaterial that there was no absence of good faith or damage to the person to whom the fiduciary obligation was owed.'
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Van Camp Chocolates Ltd v Aulesbrooks Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 354
1984


Commonwealth, Torts - Other
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The plaintiffs sued for interference with their business by unlawful means, namely breach of confidence. A preliminary point of law was argued as to the nature of the intent to injure the plaintiffs necessary to establish the tort. The court said this: "In principle, as we see it, an attempt to harm a plaintiff's economic interests should not transmute the defendant's conduct into a tort actionable by the plaintiff unless that intent is a cause of his conduct. If the defendant would have used the unlawful means in question without that intent, and if that intent would not have led him to act as he did, the mere existence of the purely collateral and extraneous malicious motive should not make all the difference. The essence of the tort is deliberate interference with the plaintiff's interests by unlawful means. If the reasons which actuate the defendant to use unlawful means are wholly independent of a wish to interfere with the plaintiff's business, such interference being no more than an incidental consequence foreseen by and gratifying to the defendant, we think that to impose liability would be to stretch the tort too far"
1 Citers


 
The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and Another v Errol Mcleod (Trinidad and Tobago) [1984] UKPC 2
11 Jan 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Nellie Evelyn Crichlow (Widow) and Others v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1984] UKPC 1
11 Jan 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pang Choon Kong v Chew Teng Cheong Loh Kian Tee (Malaysia) [1984] UKPC 4
25 Jan 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Maynegrain Pty. Limited v Compafina Bank (New South Wales) [1984] UKPC 3
25 Jan 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tan Lai Wah v The First National Bank of Chicago (Singapore) [1984] UKPC 6
8 Feb 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Jamil Bin Harun v Yang Kamsiah Bte. Meor Rasdi Yang Salbiah Bt. Meor Rasdi Both Infants Suing By Their Father Meor Rasdi and Rashidi Bin Jamaludin [1984] UKPC 5
13 Feb 1984
PC

Commonwealth
(Malaysia)
[ Bailii ]
 
Thomson Hill Limited v The Comptroller of Income Tax (Singapore) [1984] UKPC 8
15 Feb 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomson Hill Limited v The Comptroller of Income Tax (Singapore) [1984] UKPC 8
15 Feb 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ooi Boon Leong Peter Kok Siew Fatt Harold Kowada v Citibank N.A. (Malaysia) [1984] UKPC 7
15 Feb 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lau Sik- Chun v The Queen (Hong Kong) [1984] UKPC 12
27 Feb 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Koh Kim Chai v Asia Commercial Banking Corporation Limited [1984] UKPC 9
12 Mar 1984
PC

Commonwealth
(Malaysia)
[ Bailii ]
 
Bridge v Deacons (A Firm) [1984] UKPC 11
26 Mar 1984
PC

Commonwealth
(Hong Kong)
[ Bailii ]
 
Kewal Krishan Abrol v The General Dental Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Dental Council) [1984] UKPC 14
10 Apr 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) Limited (Singapore) [1984] UKPC 13
10 Apr 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
De Boucherville v The State of Mauritius [1994] 2 AC 324; [1994] UKPC 5
18 Apr 1984
PC
Lord Templeman, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf, Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Commonwealth, Crime
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tamaitirua Kaitamaki v The Queen [1984] UKPC 15
1 May 1984
PC

Commonwealth
New Zealand
[ Bailii ]

 
 Boheto Pty Ltd v Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd; PC 1-May-1984 - [1984] UKPC 16
 
O.C.B.C. Limited v Philip Wee Kee Puan and Wee Kee Puan (Malaysia) [1984] UKPC 18
8 May 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Lo and Lo (A Firm) (Hong Kong) [1984] UKPC 19
10 May 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dasrath Rai v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1984] UKPC 20
14 May 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Socoil Corporation v Ng Foo Chong Ng Foo Fok (Trading As Ng Brothers Import and Export Company) (Malaysia) [1984] UKPC 23
13 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
George Akl v John Aziz (Gambia) [1984] UKPC 24
18 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lim Kim Chet, Nan Yit Development (M) Sdn.Bhd. v Multar Bin Masngud (Malaysia) [1984] UKPC 25
18 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mararet Grace Williams and Others (Pastoral Measure) v The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1984] UKPC 26
20 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Herman Peter Tarnesby v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1984] UKPC 28
21 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1984] Crim LR 549; [1985] AC 168; [1984] 3 WLR 677; [1984] 3 All ER 877; [1984] UKPC 27; (1985) 80 Cr App R 117; (1984) 81 LSG 216
21 Jun 1984
PC
Sir Robin Cooke, Keith of Kinkel, Bridge of Harwich, Brandon of Oakbrook, Templeman LL
Crime, Commonwealth
The appellant and co-accused were charged with murder. They said they had gone to meet the deceased to collect a debt, but had been attacked with a knife by the deceased. Two of the three had knives and knew of the other knife. Held: All were taking part in a joint and unlawful enterprise. Each had sufficient intent if they foresaw the possibility of death or serious bodily injury to the accused during the unlawful enterprise, but that had to be shown against each of them.
Sir Robin Cooke described the simplest form of joint enterprise: "a person acting in concert with the primary offender may become a party to the crime, whether or not present at the time of its commission, by activities variously described as aiding, abetting, counselling, inciting or procuring it. In the typical case in that class, the same or the same type of offence is actually intended by all the parties acting in concert. In view of the terms of the directions to the jury here, the Crown does not seek to support the present convictions on that ground. The case must depend rather on the wider principle whereby a secondary party is criminally liable for acts by the primary offender of a type which the former foresees but does not necessarily intend.
That there is such a principle is not in doubt. It turns on contemplation or, putting the same idea in other words, authorisation, which may be express but is more usually implied. It meets the case of a crime foreseen as a possible incident of the common unlawful enterprise. The criminal liability lies in participating in the venture with that foresight.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Choo Kok Beng v Choo Kok Hoe and Others (Singapore) [1984] UKPC 33
23 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tatmar Pastoral Co. Pty. Limited and Penrith Pastoral Co. Pty. Limited v Housing Commission of New South Wales (New South Wales) [1984] UKPC 29
25 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Khurbur Ram Letchan v Leslie Redvers Martin (Fiji) [1984] UKPC 30
27 Jun 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Y. Frempong v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1984] UKPC 31
2 Jul 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
United Malayan Banking Corporation and Johore Sugar Plantation and Industries Berhad v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kota Tinggi [1984] UKPC 32
9 Jul 1984
PC

Commonwealth
Malaysia
[ Bailii ]
 
Chng Boon Huat v Comptroller of Income Tax (Singapore) [1984] UKPC 34
19 Jul 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tiong Ing Chiong v Giovanni Vinetti (Brunei) [1984] UKPC 35
25 Jul 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hajjah Tampoi Bte. Haji Matusin A Haji Hussin and Others v Haji Matussin Bin Pengarah Rahman [1984] UKPC 37
31 Jul 1984
PC

Commonwealth
(Brunei)
[ Bailii ]
 
Samuel Tak Lee v Chou Wen Hsien and Others (Hong Kong) [1984] UKPC 36
31 Jul 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 55 CLR 549; [1984] 54 ALR 417; [1985] CLY 2326; [1984] HCA 52
20 Aug 1984

Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ
Commonwealth, Negligence, Personal Injury
(High Court of Australia) The claimant's husband was injured. She saw his injuries at hospital and was affected. She claimed damages for her own shock. Held: The driver owed her a duty of care, and was liable for negligence which caused nervous shock. A finding at first instance that she had normal fortitude, her predisposition to anxiety and depression gave no defence.
Brennan J said: "Liability for negligence occasioning nervous shock has not been readily accepted, perhaps because the courts found evidence of psychiatric illness and of its aetiology to be too vague to warrant a finding of a causal relationship between psychiatric illness and careless conduct . . A plaintiff may recover only if the psychiatric illness is the result of physical injury negligently inflicted on him by the defendant or if it is induced by "shock". Psychiatric illness caused in other ways attracts no damages . . I understand "shock" in this context to mean the sudden sensory perception - that is, by seeing, hearing or touching - of a person, thing or event, which is so distressing that the perception of the phenomenon affronts or insults the plaintiff's mind and causes a recognizable psychiatric illness."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
The Queensland Electricity Generating Board v New Hope Collieries Pty. Ltd (Queensland) [1984] UKPC 39
2 Oct 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kowloon Stock Exchange Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1984] UKPC 38
2 Oct 1984
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Louis Leopold Myrtile v The Queen (Mauritius) [1984] UKPC 40
2 Oct 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Meng Leong Development Pte. Ltd v Jip Hong Trading Co. Pte. Ltd (Singapore) [1984] UKPC 41
15 Oct 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672; (1984) 55 ALR 225; (1984) 58 ALJR 531; (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-311
16 Oct 1984

Mason J
Commonwealth, Vicarious Liability
(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer's duty to an employee and delegation to an independent contractor. As Mason J said: "On the hypothesis that the duty is personal or incapable of delegation, the employer is liable for its negligent performance, whether the performance be that of an employee or that of an independent contractor" and as to the existence of a non-delegable duty: "when we look to the classes of case in which the existence of a non-delegable duty has been recognised, it appears that there is some element in the relationship between the parties that makes it appropriate to impose on the defendant a duty to ensure that reasonable care and skill is taken for the safety of the persons to whom the duty is owed . . The element in the relationship between the parties which generates a special responsibility or duty to see that care is taken may be found in one or more of several circumstances. The hospital undertakes the care, supervision and control of patients who are in special need of care. The school authority undertakes like special responsibilities in relation to the children whom it accepts into its care. If the invitor be subject to a special duty, it is because he assumes a particular responsibility in relation to the safety of his premises and the safety of his invitee by inviting him to enter them . . In these situations the special duty arises because the person on whom it is imposed has undertaken the care, supervision or control of the person or property of another or is so placed in relation to that person or his property as to assume a particular responsibility for his or its safety, in circumstances where the person affected might reasonably expect that due care will be exercised."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
The Societe United Docks and Others v The Government of Mauritius and Others (Mauritius) [1984] UKPC 42
25 Oct 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Clunies-Ross v Commonwealth [1984] HCA 65; (1984) 155 CLR 193
25 Oct 1984

Gibbs CJ, Mason, Murphy, Wilson(1), Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ
Commonwealth
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Compulsory Acquisition - Land - Acquisition by Commonwealth - Power to acquire land for public purposes - Whether limited to acquisition of land needed or proposed to be used for public purposes - Earlier sale of other land to Commonwealth - Whether implied term of contract of sale that Commonwealth would not compulsorily acquire balance - The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxi) - Lands Acquisition Act 1955 (Cth), ss. 5, 6, 16(1).
The statutory power to acquire land for a public purpose could not be used to "advance or achieve some more remote public purpose, however laudable."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Philip William Carney v John Edward Herbert and Others [1984] UKPC 43
29 Oct 1984
PC

Commonwealth
(New South Wales)
[ Bailii ]
 
Sun Kee and Co. v Chop Sin Hua and Another (Malaysia) [1984] UKPC 44
31 Oct 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Wai Tong v Li Ping Sum (Hong Kong) [1984] UKPC 1
21 Nov 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lim Yoke Foo Alias Lim Yap Kwee v Eu Finance Berhad (Malaysia) [1984] UKPC 47
21 Nov 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Wai Tong and Wong Shok Ting v Li Ping Sum (Hong Kong) [1984] UKPC 49
21 Nov 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
University of Wollongong v Merwally (1984) 158 CLR 447
22 Nov 1984

Deane J
Commonwealth, Constitutional
(High Court of Australia) Deane J said: "A parliament may legislate that, for the purposes of the law which it controls, past facts or past laws are to be deemed and treated as having been different to what they were. It cannot however objectively expunge the past or alter the facts of history."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Harry Lee Wee v The Law Society of Singapore [1984] UKPC 50; [1985] 1 WLR 362; [1984] UKPC 50
3 Dec 1984
PC
Lord Bridge
Commonwealth, Legal Professions
(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."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Inverugie Investments Limited v Richard Hackett (Bahamas) [1984] UKPC 51
5 Dec 1984
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Griffin Coal Mining Company Limited v The State Energy Commission of Western Australia [1984] UKPC 52
10 Dec 1984
PC

Commonwealth, Contract
(Western Australia)
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Roffel [1985] VR 511; [1985] VicRp 51
19 Dec 1984

Young CJ, Crockett, Brooking JJ
Commonwealth, Crime
(Australia - Supreme Court of Victoria) A couple ran a clothing manufacturing business. They then formed a limited company of which they became the sole directors and shareholders and sold the business to the company. The price remained unpaid. The company's premises were destroyed by fire and the proceeds of insurance were paid into the company's bank account. The company's debts exceeded the proceeds of the insurance. The husband drew cheques on the company's account and was prosecuted for theft from the company and convicted. Held: (Majority) The court quashed the conviction. Under the Crimes Act 1958 the necessary element of appropriation required proof of adverse interference with or usurpation of some right or rights of the owner (Regina v. Morris). As the company was a separate legal entity, and in the particular circumstances (through its directing mind and will) had consented to the husband's drawing the cheques, it could not be said that he had appropriated the company's property.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.