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: 1996 To: 1996

This page lists 74 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Wardrope v Dunne [1996] 1 Qd R 224
1996

Derrington J
Commonwealth, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
(Queensland) Where in his pleadings a party relies upon his state of mind and it would be unfair to permit that party to maintain privilege in respect of communications passing between them and their legal advisers which might bear upon the existence of that state of mind, legal privilege may be lost.
Derrington J said: "The same basic principle is relevant to this issue, that is, whether the original privilege has been lost because the state of mind of Mr Johnston, which may or may not have been influenced by the privileged material, is in issue. In the resolution of that issue it is necessary to investigate all relevant matters in his mind at the time in order to determine whether he was so induced by the alleged representations at all. Cognate to this is the question whether other factors constituted the inducement. The recommendations of Mr Miller and the terms of all advice concerning the recommendations which Mr Johnson says provided the material upon which he made his decision is obviously highly relevant to the enquiry. It would be grossly unjust to the plaintiff to deny him access to it in order to investigate and test the claim.
Notwithstanding the high status of professional privilege and the careful protection which the law affords it, when the contents of a privileged communication become the subject of a legitimate and reasonable issue in the litigation, then the privilege is lost."
1 Citers


 
Fernando v Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 1 BHRC 104
1996

Fernando J
Media, Commonwealth, Constitutional
(Sri Lanka) Broadcasts were planned including discussion by experts and listeners. Mr Fernando had participated in these discussions. After criticisms of the government the service came to an end and the broadcasts included little listener participation. Art 14 of the Constitution gave every citizen the freedom of speech and expression including publication”. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka rejected the contention that the right to freedom of information simpliciter is included in the right to freedom of speech and expression. The right to receive information was in Article 10 of the Constitution that “every person is entitled to freedom of thought” which was the corollary of freedom of speech. Held: The freedom of speech of the petitioner, qua participatory listener, was infringed, because the stoppage of the NFEP prevented his participation. He was in the same position as the contributor of a column in Visuvalingam and the plaintiff in Lamont.
1 Citers


 
Christensen v Scott [1996] 1 NZLR 273
1996

Thomas J
Commonwealth, Company, Damages
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Thomas J said: “the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen’s shares in the company is by definition a personal loss and not a corporate loss. The loss suffered by the company is the loss of the lease and the profit which would have been obtained from harvesting the potato crop. That loss is reflected in the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen’s shares. They can no longer realise their shares at the value they enjoyed prior to the alleged default of their accountants and solicitors.” and "We do not need to enter upon a close examination of the Newman Industries decision. It has attracted not insignificant and, at times, critical comment. See eg L C B Gower, Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law (5th ed, 1992) at pp 647-653; L S Sealy, "Problems of Standing, Pleading and Proof in Corporate Litigation" (Ed, B.G. Pettit) at p 1 esp at pp 6-10; and M J Sterling, "The Theory and Policy of Shareholder Actions in Tort" (1987) 50 MLR. 468, esp at pp 470-474. It may be accepted that the Court of Appeal was correct, however, in concluding that a member has no right to sue directly in respect of a breach of duty owed to the company or in respect of a tort committed against the company. Such claims can only be bought by the company itself or by a member in a derivative action under an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. But this is not necessarily to exclude a claim brought by a party, who may also be a member, to whom a separate duty is owed and who suffers a personal loss as a result of a breach of that duty Where such a party, irrespective that he or she is a member, has personal rights and these rights are invaded, the rule in Foss v Harbottle is irrelevant. Nor would the claim necessarily have the calamitous consequences predicted by counsel in respect of the concept of corporate personality and limited liability. The loss arises not from a breach of duty owed to the company but from a breach of duty owed to the individuals. The individual is simply suing to vindicate his own right or redress a wrong done to him or her giving rise to a personal loss.
Thomas J continued: "We consider, therefore, that it is certainly arguable that, where there is an independent duty owed to the plaintiff and a breach of that duty occurs, the resulting loss may be recovered by the plaintiff. The fact that the loss may also be suffered by the company does not mean that it is not also a personal loss to the individual. Indeed, the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen's shares in the company is by definition a personal loss and not a corporate loss. The loss suffered by the company is the loss of the lease and the profit which would have been obtained from harvesting the potato crop. That loss is reflected in the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen's shares. They can no longer realise their shares at the value they enjoyed prior to the alleged default of their accountants and solicitors. (For a discussion of the policy issues which arise in considering these questions, see Sterling (supra) at pp 474-491.) In circumstances of this kind the possibility that the company and the member may seek to hold the same party liable for the same loss may pose a difficulty. Double recovery, of course, cannot be permitted. The problem does not arise in this case, however, as the company has chosen to settle its claim. Peat Marwick and McCaw Lewis accepted a compromise in the knowledge that Mr and Mrs Christensen's claim was outstanding. It may well be, as was acknowledged by Mr Pidgeon in the course of argument, that an allowance will need to be made for the amount already paid to the liquidator in settlement of the company's claim. It is to be acknowledged, however, that the problem of double recovery may well arise in other cases. No doubt, such a possibility is most likely with smaller private companies where the interrelationship between the company, the directors and the shareholders may give rise to independent duties on the part of the professional advisers involved. But the situation where one defendant owes a duty to two persons who suffer a common loss is not unknown in the law, and it will need to be examined in this context. It may be found that there is no necessary reason why the company's loss should take precedence over the loss of the individuals who are owed a separate duty of care. To meet the problem of double recovery in such circumstances it will be necessary to evolve principles to determine which party or parties will be able to seek or obtain recovery. A stay of one proceeding may be required. Judgment, with a stay of execution against one or other of the parties, may be in order. An obligation to account in whole or in part may be appropriate. The interest of creditors who may benefit if one party recovers and not the other may require consideration. As the problem of double recovery does not arise in this case, however, it is preferable to leave an examination of these issues to a case where that problem is squarely in point. "
and "Essentially, Mr and Mrs Christensen are alleging that as a result of Peat Marwick and McCaw Lewis's breach of duty owed to them personally they suffered a personal loss, that is, a reduction in the value of their assets. Their assets in this case had been channelled into their company. Thus, it is arguable that the diminution in the value of their shareholding is the measure of that loss. It may well be that when the evidence is heard it will be apparent that Mr and Mrs Christensen's claim is inflated, but that is a matter for the trial. We are not prepared to hold at this stage that they do not have an arguable case to recover damages for the breach of an acknowledged duty.""
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Taikato v Regina (1996) 186 CLR 454
1996

Brennan CJ
Commonwealth, Crime
(High Court of Australia) The court was asked whether an individual carrying a formaldehyde spray possessed it "for a lawful purpose". Held: She did not do so even though it was a purpose not prohibited by law, namely self defence: "'Lawful purpose' in [the relevant legislation] should be read as a purpose that is authorised, as opposed to not forbidden, by law because that meaning best gives effect to the object of the section. The meaning of 'lawful' depends on its context, as Napier J pointed out in Crafter v Kelly [[1941] SASR 237 at 243]. As a result, a 'lawful purpose' may mean a purpose not forbidden by law or not unlawful under the statute that enacts the term . . ; or it can mean a purpose that is supported by a positive rule of law . .
As a general rule, interpreting 'lawful purpose' in a legislative provision to mean a purpose that is not forbidden, rather than positively authorised, by law is the interpretation that best gives effect to the legislative purpose of the enactment. This is because statutes are interpreted in accordance with the presumption that Parliament does not take away existing rights unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication . . Nevertheless, the purpose, context or subject matter of a legislative provision may indicate that Parliament has used the term 'lawful purpose' to mean a purpose that is positively authorised by law."
1 Citers


 
Winward Properties Ltd V. The Government of Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Co (Saint Vincent and The Grenadines) [1996] UKPC 60
11 Jan 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr. Rashid Khalife Rahme V. The General Medical Council Co (The General Medical Council) [1996] UKPC 61
16 Jan 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas Reckley v Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others (Bahamas) (No 2) Times, 06 February 1996; [1996] UKPC 1; [1996] 1 All ER 562
6 Feb 1996
PC

Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth
(The Bahamas) The actual exercise of the prerogative of mercy by a state falls outside the scope of the law. No further stay of execution granted.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]

 
 Invercargill City Council v Hamlin; PC 12-Feb-1996 - Times, 15 February 1996; 50 Con LR 105; [1996] AC 624; [1996] UKPC 56; 78 BLR 78; [1996] 1 NZLR 513; [1996] 1 All ER 756
 
Consolidated Investment and Enterprises Ltd V. The Commissioner of Income Tax Co (Mauritius) [1996] UKPC 62
19 Feb 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Nankissoon Boodram v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1996] AC 842; (1996) 47 WIR 459
19 Feb 1996
PC
Lord Mustill
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Media
The court considered the effect of prejudicial reporting on a trial: “In a case such as this, the publications either will or will not prove to have been so harmful that when the time for the trial arrives the techniques available to the trial judge for neutralising them will be insufficient to prevent injustice. The proper forum for a complaint about publicity is the trial court, where the judge can assess the circumstances which exist when the defendant is about to be given in charge of the jury, and decide whether measures such as warnings and directions to the jury, peremptory challenge and challenge for cause will enable the jury to reach its verdict with an unclouded mind, or whether exceptionally a temporary or even permanent stay of the prosecution is the only solution.”
1 Citers


 
Nankissoon Boodram Also Called Dole Chadee V. The Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago, The Director of Public Prosecutions Co (Trinidad and Tobago) [1996] UKPC 63
19 Feb 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Linsberth Logan V. The Queen Co (Belize) [1996] UKPC 64
21 Feb 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Nicolas Antonio Guevara V. The Queen Co (Belize) [1996] UKPC 65
21 Feb 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Devon Simpson, Leroy Morgan and Samuel Williams And, Walford Wallace vThe Queen and Others and Another [1996] UKPC 66
7 Mar 1996
PC

Commonwealth
Jamaica
[ Bailii ]
 
Logan v The Queen Times, 08 March 1996
8 Mar 1996
PC

Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth
(Belize) The Privy Council may hear an appeal against the death sentence after a mercy plea had been rejected under the Belize criminal Code.
1 Citers


 
Harley Development Inc. And, Trillium Investment Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue Co [1996] UKPC 67
14 Mar 1996
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Ellis Taibo v The Queen Co (Belize) [1996] UKPC 68
26 Mar 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre; PC 27-Mar-1996 - [1996] UKPC 5; [1997] AC 97; [1996] 4 All ER 256
 
Codrington v the Queen (Belize) [1996] UKPC 6
27 Mar 1996
PC

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He had two grounds of appeal, that the judge had failed to get right the burden of proof, and that his counsel had not allowed him to give evidence when he had wanted to. The case was remitted. Although the judge's summing up was fair, the committee was unable to asses the truth of what had happened with counsel, and the court of appeal was better placed to make that judgement.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Lee Hiok Woon and Lee Hiok Tng (Sued As The Excutors and Trustees of The Estate of Lee Wee Nam, Deceased) and Orthers V. Lee Hiok Ping and Others Co (Singapore) [1996] UKPC 70
27 Mar 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen; PC 2-Apr-1996 - Gazette, 01 May 1996; Times, 02 April 1996; [1996] 2 Crim App R 178; [1997] AC 131; [1996] 2 All ER 1033; [1996] 3 WLR 45; [1996] UKPC 57
 
The Mahkutai Times, 24 April 1996; [1996] AC 650; [1996] 3 WLR 1
24 Apr 1996
PC
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Transport, Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Contract, Arbitration
(Hong Kong) The question was whether shipowners, who were not parties to the bill of lading contract between the charterers and carriers on the one part, and the cargo-owners, the bill of lading being a charterer's bill, could enforce against the cargo-owners an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in that contract. Held: Ship owners may not rely on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a charterer's contract. They could not because the Himalaya clause in the bill of lading, which extended the benefit of all "exceptions, limitations, provision, conditions and liberties herein benefiting the carrier" to "servants, agents and subcontractors of the carrier" did not include the exclusive jurisdiction clause because an exclusive jurisdiction clause is a mutual agreement and does not benefit only one party. Rather the rights conferred entail correlative obligations. A contract (and in particular a Himalaya clause) must be construed to give commercial effect if possible.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sookermany v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 48 WIR 346
1 May 1996

de la Bastide CJ
Commonwealth, Crime
The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed an appeal against refusal of constitutional relief claimed on the ground of undue delay:- "As there are admittedly measures available to a trial judge to negative the prejudicial effect on the defence of delay, there would seem to me to be no reason why a court following the lead given by the Board in [Boodram] should not in all but the most exceptional circumstances refuse to stay criminal proceedings on a constitutional motion brought for that purpose, and leave it for the trial judge to determine what measures he should take to counteract the prejudicial effect of the delay and if he should conclude that no effective counteraction is possible, himself to order the proceedings stayed."
1 Citers


 
Collier v John Neville Creighton and others [1996] UKPC 7
8 May 1996
PC

Commonwealth, Limitation
(New Zealand) The plaintiff sought damages for breach of a fiduciary duty by his solicitors. They responded that his claim was out of time. The judge had found an equitable fraud, and therefore time did not begin to run until it was discovered. Held: The Appeal court had been correct in finding that the solicitor had disclosed his interest in the matter, and that therefore time began running then, and the claim was now barred.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Douglas and others v The Right Honourable Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling; PC 13-May-1996 - Gazette, 30 May 1996; [1996] UKPC 8; [1996] AC 890
 
Wu Chun-Piu V. The Queen Co (Hong Kong) [1996] UKPC 72
14 May 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lion Nathan Limited and others v C C Bottlers Limited and others; PC 14-May-1996 - Times, 16 May 1996; Gazette, 26 June 1996; [1996] UKPC 9; [1996] 1 WLR 1438
 
Wu Chun-Piu v the Queen Gazette, 30 May 1996; Times, 17 May 1996
17 May 1996
PC

Crime, Commonwealth
(Hong Kong) Admissions made by counsel in mitigation may not preclude an appeal against a conviction.

 
Yin v Rapian Bin Suhaili and others (Brunei Darussalam) [1996] UKPC 10
20 May 1996
PC

Jury, Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lamey v The Queen; PC 20-May-1996 - Times, 22 May 1996; [1996] UKPC 14; [1996] 1 WLR 902

 
 SOS Kinderdorf International and Others v Ebrima B Bittaye; PC 20-May-1996 - Gazette, 26 June 1996; [1996] UKPC 11; [1996] 1 WLR 987

 
 Ming Pao Newspapers Limited and others v The Attorney General of Hong Kong; PC 20-May-1996 - [1996] UKPC 12; [1996] AC 907

 
 Bibby and others v Sumintra Partap and others; PC 20-May-1996 - [1996] UKPC 13; [1996] 1 WLR 931

 
 Lewis v Henry St Hillaire and others; PC 22-May-1996 - [1996] UKPC 16

 
 Racoon Limited v Harris Turnbull, Executor of James Turnbull (Deceased) and others; PC 22-May-1996 - [1996] UKPC 15; [1996] 3 WLR 353; [1996] 4 All ER 503; [1997] AC 158
 
Goss and others v Laurence George Chilcott As Liquidator of Central Acceptance Limited (In Liquidation) Gazette, 12 June 1996; Times, 06 June 1996; [1996] UKPC 17; [1996] AC 788
23 May 1996
PC
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Banking, Commonwealth, Equity
(New Zealand) Mr and Mrs Goss, had been granted a loan by the claimant finance company under a mortgage instrument that had been avoided by the claimant because it had been fraudulently altered by Mr Haddon, an employee of the claimant, without the claimant's authority. Mr Haddon was the brother of Mrs Goss. The advance from the claimant having been made available to Mr and Mrs Goss, it was as agreed between them and Mr Haddon in fact received by Mr Haddon. Mr and Mrs Goss took no security from Mr Haddon. Mr Haddon was unable to repay the advance. Mr and Mrs Goss argued that their inability to recover the money from Mr Haddon constituted a defence of change of position to the claimant's action for restitution of the money paid for a consideration that had totally failed. Held: The loan remained repayable despite the unenforceability of the mortgage instrument under which it was secured. The defence failed because Mr and Mrs Goss knew that the money lent would have to be repaid to the claimant and, in paying it to Mr Haddon, they had taken the risk that the loss would fall on them.
Lord Goff said: "From the beginning, the Defendants were under an obligation to repay the advance once it had been paid to them or to their order; and this obligation was of course unaffected by the fact that they had allowed the money to be paid over to Mr Haddon. The effect of the alteration of the mortgage instrument was that their contractual obligation to repay the money was discharged; but they had nevertheless been enriched by the receipt of the money, and prima facie were liable in restitution to restore it. They had however allowed the money to be paid over to Mr Haddon in circumstances in which, as they well knew, the money would nevertheless have to be repaid to the company. They had, therefore, in allowing the money to be paid to Mr Haddon, deliberately taken the risk that he would be unable to repay the money, in which event they themselves would have to repay it without recourse to him. Since any action by them against Mr Haddon would now be fruitless they are seeking, by invoking the defence of change of position, to shift that loss onto the company. This, in their Lordships' opinion, they cannot do. The fact that they cannot now obtain reimbursement from Mr Haddon does not, in the circumstances of the present case, render it inequitable for them to be required to make restitution to the company in respect of the enrichment which they have received at the company's expense."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Director of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others; PC 12-Jun-1996 - [1996] AC 856; Appeal No 53 of 1995; [1996] UKPC 2; [1996] UKPC 19
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Jaikaran Tokai and Others
12 Jun 1996
PC

Commonwealth
PC Trinidad and Tobago
[ PC ]
 
Michael Gayle v The Queen
12 Jun 1996
PC

Commonwealth
PC Jamaica
[ PC ]

 
 Farrington v The Queen; PC 17-Jun-1996 - Times, 16 July 1996; [1996] UKPC 20
 
Gordon v the Queen (Jamaica) [1996] UKPC 21
24 Jun 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael Gayle v the Queen (Jamaica) Times, 02 July 1996; Appeal No 40 of 1995; Appeal No 40 of 1995; [1996] UKPC 3; [1996] UKPC 18; [2012] ECHR 1636; [2012] ECHR 1635; [2012] ECHR 1637; [1990] ECHR 34; [2009] ECHR 619; [1980] ECHR 9; [1997] ECHR 205; [2014] ECHR 293; [1978] ECHR 8; [2010] ECHR 2263; [1994] ECHR 59; [2011] ECHR 2422; [1985] ECHR 14; [2016] ECHR 699; [2016] ECHR 704; [2016] ECHR 986; [2017] ECHR 32
2 Jul 1996
PC

Jurisdiction, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
The judicial Committee of the Privy-Council is not to be used as second court of appeal on matters of fact.
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Webb and others [1996] 39 NSWLR 601; 14 ACLC 1
5 Jul 1996

Meagher, Sheller JJA, Waddell AJA
Commonwealth, Legal Professions
Austlii (Court of Appeal of New South Wales) COMPANY LAW - s556 (1) Companies (NSW) Code; s592 (1) Corporations Law; liability of directors for debt of company - legal professional privilege - distinction between joint and common interest privilege - waiver.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Chung Ping Kwan and others v Lam Island Development Company Limited Times, 16 July 1996; [1996] UKPC 23
8 Jul 1996
PC
Lord Keith of Kinkel Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Sir Christopher Slade
Commonwealth, Limitation, Landlord and Tenant
(Hong Kong) Various provisions had been made for the termination of long leases in Hong Kong. Land had come to be occupied by adverse possession. At first instance the judge had given judgment against the squatters, but then retracted after a later court of appeal decision. The Court of Appeal re-instated the first order. Held: The squatter against a leasehold title could acquire only a title equivalent to that of the leasehold interest. When a squatter on land held under a renewable lease is sued and pleads a limitation defence, the lessee is unable to respond by relying upon the (deemed) new lease as a new title setting time running afresh.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Holder v The State [1996] UKPC 27
9 Jul 1996
PC

Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board granted special leave for the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder and sentence to death. The murder was committed during a violent robbery and the defendant convicted as part of the joint enterprise. He said the judge had misdirected the jury as to the elements of joint enterprise, saying the actual killer had acted outside the expected scope of the robbery. Held: The appeal failed. A possible confusion of the intentions and consequences had been cured by other parts of the direction. In fact the judge had been more generous to the defendant than was required. There had also been a slight misdirection as to the possibility that the actual killer had additional motives. Again the result caused no prejudice.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Milton v the Queen (Jamaica) [1996] UKPC 24
9 Jul 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
E Johnson and Co (Barbados) Limited v N S R Limited (Barbados) [1996] UKPC 25
9 Jul 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Moses v The State [1996] UKPC 29; [1997] AC 53
29 Jul 1996
PC
Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Sir Ralph Gibson
Commonwealth, Crime
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been convicted under the felony murder rule, where if a victim dies in the course of the defendant committing a felony, the defendant is guilty of murder. Held: The distinction between felony and murder had been abolished in 1979, but no provision was made for the felon/murder rule. The abolition had not simply followed the English model, and express provision had been made applying the law of misdemeanours instead of the law of felony. The felony/murder rule must have fallen with the new law. The was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction without that rule.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ng Enterprises Limited v the Urban Council (Hong Kong) [1996] UKPC 30
29 Jul 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71; [1996] HCA 57
6 Sep 1996

Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow JJ
Commonwealth, Health Professions
High Court of Australia - Medicine - Doctor/patient relationship - Medical records - Patient's right to access - Contractual right - Doctor's duty to act in patient's 'best interests' with utmost good faith and loyalty - Patient's proprietary right or interest in information contained in records - Whether doctor under fiduciary duty to grant access - 'Right to know'.
Brendan CJ said that fiduciary duties could arise either from agency or from a relationship of ascendancy or influence by one party over another, or dependence or trust on the part of that other. An obvious example of the "agency" type of situation was the case where a person received money or other property for and on behalf of or as trustee of another person: "It is plain that fiduciary duties may well arise as aspects of a commercial relationship. Moreover, it is clear that legal and equitable rights and remedies are capable of co-existence, even in a single transaction."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Byers v The Queen (Antigua and Barbuda) [1996] UKPC 31
2 Oct 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; (1996) 186 CLR 541; (1996) 139 ALR 1; (1996) 70 ALJR 866
2 Oct 1996


Commonwealth, Limitation
(High Court of Australia) McHugh J said that the public interest requires disputes to be settled as quickly as possible.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Tai and others v Wu Yau Loi (Hong Kong) [1996] UKPC 33
10 Oct 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Brannigan and others v The Right Honourable Sir Ronald Keith Davison (New Zealand) [1996] UKPC 35
14 Oct 1996
PC

Health Professions, Commonwealth
New Zealand
[ Bailii ]
 
Dwight Lamott Henfield v The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (Appeal No 26 of 1996) and Ricardo Farrington v The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas Times, 18 October 1996; [1996] UKPC 36; [1997] AC 413; Appeal No 26 of 1996 and Appeal No 37 of 1996; [1996] UKPC 4
14 Oct 1996
PC

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth
(The Bahamas) A delay in carrying out an execution for 3.5 years, where the target delay had been set at 2 years, was inhuman treatment, and the execution should be set aside. The essential question in Pratt was whether the execution of a man following long delay after his sentence to death can amount to inhuman punishment contrary to Article 17(1).
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Berry v Director of Public Prosecutions and others (Jamaica) [1996] UKPC 37
17 Oct 1996
PC

Commonwealth, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Wu Koon Tai and Another v Wu Yau Loi Times, 25 October 1996
25 Oct 1996
PC

Land, Commonwealth
Inability of devisee to convey land until vested does not stop contract to do so.


 
 Berry v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another; PC 28-Oct-1996 - Times, 28 October 1996
 
Berridge and others v Benjies Business Centre [1996] UKPC 38
7 Nov 1996
PC

Commonwealth
(Antigua and Barbuda)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Kin-Hung v The Queen; PC 11-Nov-1996 - [1996] UKPC 39
 
Mak v Wocom Commodities Limited [1996] UKPC 40
11 Nov 1996
PC
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Sir John May
Financial Services, Agency, Commonwealth
(Hong Kong) The appellant had placed foreign exchange transactions with the respondents. He claimed that they were acting as his agents, and claimed that they had made undisclosed profits. They claimed to have been acting as principals. He now appealed a finding that he knew that they were so acting. Held: The issue turned on the credibility of witnesses. Where there had been to consistent findings of fact in the lower courts, the settled procedure of the Board was not itself to make such an assessment. Matters such as the weight to be attached to particular evidence did not come within any exception to that rule.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Nguyen Tuan Cuong and others v The Director of Immigration and others (Hong Kong) [1996] UKPC 43; [1997] 1 WLR 68
21 Nov 1996
PC
Lord Goff and Lord Hoffmann (Dissenting)
Commonwealth, Immigration
(Dissenting judgment) A person who satisfies [the Convention] definition is said to have refugee status. The Convention imposes obligations towards persons having that status. For immigration, Article 31 forbids the imposition of penalties on refugees arriving in another country without authorisation - unlike article 33, it is derogable under article 42. Refugee status is not an international passport which entitles the bearer to demand entry without let or hindrance into the territory of any contracting state. It is always a status relative to a particular country or countries. The obligations of contracting states are, first, not to punish a refugee who has entered directly from the country in which his life or freedom was threatened for a Convention reason and secondly, not to return him across the frontier of that country. In all other questions of immigration control: for example, punishment for illegal entry from a third country, or expulsion to a third country from which there is no danger of refoulement to a country falling within article 33, the question of whether a person has refugee status is simply irrelevant.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Juana v Leo Lee (Hong Kong) [1996] UKPC 44
26 Nov 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jeewooth v The Government of Mauritius; PC 26-Nov-1996 - [1996] UKPC 45
 
Rangatira Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1996] UKPC 54; [1996] New Zealand UKPC 46
2 Dec 1996
PC

Income Tax, Commonwealth

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Wallace and others v The Queen (Jamaica) Times, 31 December 1996; [1996] UKPC 47
3 Dec 1996
PC

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
There is no general principle within criminal law that the judge should give reasons for his decisions.
[ Bailii ]
 
Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1996) 141 ALR 1; (1996) 186 CLR 574; (1996) 71 ALJR 131; [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-412; (1996) 20 Leg Rep 24
10 Dec 1996

Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow JJ
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice
High Court of Australia - Torts - Joint tortfeasors - Release - Effect of release of one joint tortfeasor on other joint tortfeasors - Effect on common law of s 11 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) - Whether cause of action against joint tortfeasors one and indivisible.
Defamation - Defences - Innocent dissemination - Whether available to television station which retransmits unchanged to different area a program produced by another - Whether television station a subordinate publisher.
[ Austlii ]
 
Queen v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rosa Ines Agudelo Velasquez [1996] EWHC Admin 350
11 Dec 1996
Admn

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Campbell v the Queen (Jamaica) [1996] UKPC 49
16 Dec 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Culverden Retirement Village Limited v The Registrar of Companies [1996] UKPC 50
16 Dec 1996
PC

Commonwealth, Company
(New Zealand)
[ Bailii ]
 
Henderson Real Estate Agency Limited v Lo Chai Wan (Hong Kong) [1996] UKPC 51
16 Dec 1996
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General of Hong Kong v Fairfax Limited [1996] UKPC Hong Kong 52; [1996] UKPC 55; [1997] 1 WLR 149
17 Dec 1996
PC
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Commonwealth, Land
(Hong Kong) A lease had been granted containing a covenant that the tenant would build villa residences only on the land. In breach of that covenant many high rise properties had been erected over many years. The applicant, now respondents, had sought a declaration that it could likewise erect a multi-story building, saying that the crown, the landlord, had acquiesced in the breach over many years and could not now enforce it. Held: The Crown's appeal failed. "A man cannot acquiesce in conduct of which he is ignorant. Whilst their Lordships accept that proof of such knowledge is essential, there is here overwhelming proof." and "the only possible inference from the fact that over a period of forty years multi-storey blocks have been built over virtually the whole of Lot 757 is that everyone, including the Crown, must have been aware of those facts. An area of 22 acres has been transformed into an area of high-density high-rise buildings. It would take compelling evidence, which is lacking, to rebut the inference that everyone concerned with that land was well aware that it was not being used for villas."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Melanesian Mission Trust Board v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1996] UKPC 53; [1997] 2 EGLR 128
17 Dec 1996
PC
Lord Hope
Commonwealth, Contract
(New Zealand) Lord Hope said: "The intention of the parties is to be discovered from the words used in the document. Where ordinary words have been used they must be taken to have been used according to the ordinary meaning of these words. If their meaning is clear and unambiguous effect must be given to them because that is what the parties are taken to have agreed by their contract."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Crampton v Nugawela [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-416; (1996) 41 NSWLR 176; [1996] NSWSC 651
23 Dec 1996

Mahoney ACJ, Handley JA, Giles AJA
Commonwealth, Defamation, Damages
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) Defamation - Damages - Aggravated and general damages - Economic loss with respect to professional standing - Principles relevant to assessment of damages for defamation - Relationship to damages for serious personal injury
When considering the likelihood of repetition of a libel once published, the court spoke of 'the grapevine effect'.
1 Citers

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