Anthony v Ellis and Fairbairn (A Firm): SCCO 12 May 2000

The court considered a solicitor’s bill which vastly exceeded the estimate given.

Judges:

Sir Oliver Popplewell

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 9009 (Costs), [2002] 2 Costs LR 277, [2000] 2 Costs LR 277

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Wong v Vizards 1997
The solicitors had sent to the client a written fee proposal for a forthcoming case which they said was drafted on ‘the worst case basis’, saying ‘I provided you with a fee proposal which hopefully sets out the fullest extent of your liability to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Reynolds v Stone Rowe Brewer (A Firm) QBD 18-Mar-2008
The solicitors appealed against the assessment of their costs. The judge had found that they had estimated their costs and applied a 15% margin of error.
Held: the judge should have given reasons for his judgment to allow the parties to assess . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235626

Wong v Vizards: 1997

The solicitors had sent to the client a written fee proposal for a forthcoming case which they said was drafted on ‘the worst case basis’, saying ‘I provided you with a fee proposal which hopefully sets out the fullest extent of your liability to this firm for costs likely to be incurred in the future’. The client said that the solicitor should be bound by this estimate, and he appealed against a detailed assessment of costs. Costs were assessed at the amount shown in the original estimate plus 15%.
Held: The court referred to rules 3, 4 and 6 in the Solicitors’ Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999 and to a number of authorities. A client knows that he will be charged by his solicitor and thus a solicitor who fails to give an estimate should not thereby be disentitled from receiving any fees. The court held the solicitors to the estimated sum plus 15%, but also allowed the solicitor to recover the costs of communications with the client on the basis that these were not covered by the estimate and so (by implication) the Judge reasoned that the client must have expected to pay separately for these communications: ‘It is open to Mr Wong to argue that in determining what is a reasonable amount for him to pay for the work done, regard should be had to the level of costs which he had been led to believe represented a worst case assessment of his potential liability.’

Judges:

Toulson J

Citations:

[1997] 2 Costs LR 46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
Cited – Reynolds v Stone Rowe Brewer (A Firm) QBD 18-Mar-2008
The solicitors appealed against the assessment of their costs. The judge had found that they had estimated their costs and applied a 15% margin of error.
Held: the judge should have given reasons for his judgment to allow the parties to assess . .
Approved – Anthony v Ellis and Fairbairn (A Firm) SCCO 12-May-2000
The court considered a solicitor’s bill which vastly exceeded the estimate given. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231523

Regina v Stevenson: 1862

The defendant was convicted of causing a public nuisance by exposing for sale unfit meat.

Citations:

(1862) 3 FandF 106, [1862] 176 ER 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231624

Mcleod v Common Professional Examination Board: SCCO 13 Mar 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 9007 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board ex parte Sally Mealing-Mcleod Admn 4-Nov-1997
The claimant challenged decisions taken as to the extension of time to allow her to pass the Common Professional Examination to become a member of the Bar. An application had some time before made for an oder under the 1981 Act. There was no taint . .
See Also – Regina v ex parte Mealing-Mcleod CA 18-Feb-1999
Formal order acknowledging settlement in favour of the applicant. . .
See Also – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board (ex parte Sally Mealing Mcleod) Admn 19-Apr-1999
. .
See Also – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board ex parte Mealing-Mcleod CA 21-Apr-1999
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead CA 19-Apr-2000
A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235624

Rex v Vantandillo: 1815

The mother of a young child took him through a public street well knowing that the child suffered from the contagious, infectious and dangerous disease of smallpox.
Held: She was properly convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in the custody of the marshal for the offence of committing a public nuisance.

Citations:

(1815) 4 MandS 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231619

des Gaz SA v Falks Veritas Ltd: CA 1974

The court considered for the first time, the effect of the Rome Treaty. It ‘came about because of a tin can’ .
A question requiring the exercise of a judges discretion is to be determined as at the date that the primary judge gave judgment, not as at the date that the statement of claim was filed, unless a statute changing the law expresses a clear contrary intention.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1974] Ch 381, [1974] 3 All ER 51

Statutes:

European Communities Act 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others CA 20-Oct-2005
It was argued that the Secretary of State, when implementing the Directive in the 2001 Regulations, had exceeded his powers in preserving provisions of the Registered Designs Act. The judge had held the Seceretary had exceeded his powers. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235766

Leadbeater v Leadbeater: 1985

The court considered the case of a couple, in their mid-forties. Both had previously been married and both their former spouses married each other. They enjoyed a high standard of living. W brought with her two (2) adopted children from the former marriage. W suffered from a drinking problem. When H brought a teenaged friend of the adopted daughter to live with them, W reacted by going to Cyprus and committing adultery with different persons. H offered to take her back on the condition that the friend of her daughter be permitted to stay in the house.
Held: The deplorable conduct of each party cancelled the effect of the other.
In calculating the matrimonial assets, Balcombe J added back the paid costs of each party into the Schedule of assets, since the assessment of an applicant’s needs without both adding back payments made and disregarding liability for unpaid costs incurred and to be incurred, would effectively anticipate the costs order that would eventually be made.

Judges:

Balcombe J

Citations:

[1985] FLR 789

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wells v Wells CA 20-Mar-2002
The court considered an application for ancillary relief. The assets were substantial, but before the judge was to deliver his judgment he accepted evidence from the husand that the sale of his business had fallen through and H’s income . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235283

Shadgett v Clipson: 1807

A sheriff’s officer could not justify an imprisonment of A. B. under a latitat against C. B. though it was averred that A. B. and C. B., are one and the same person, there being no averment that A. B. was known by the name of C. B.

Citations:

(1807) 8 East 328

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hoye v Bush 1841
A constable applied for a warrant for the arrest of Richard Hoye, but the justice mistakenly issued a warrant for the arrest of John Hoye, which was the name of Richard Hoye’s father. The constable arrested Richard Hoye, who sued for false . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.229687

Brink’s Ltd v AbuSaleh: 1999

Mrs Elcombe accompanied her husband on a number of trips to Switzerland. Mr Elcombe was carrying money which was part of the proceeds of the Brinks-Mat gold bullion robbery. However, Mrs Elcombe did not know that. She thought that the money was the subject of a tax evasion exercise. Brink’s claimed against her that she was liable as a dishonest assistant in a breach of trust.
Held: Although Mrs Elcombe knew that her husband was engaged in a dishonest scheme (i.e. tax evasion) that was not enough. It had to be proved that she knew of the existence of the trust or, at least of the facts giving rise to the trust. A security guard was employed in a position of trust in which he possessed valuable information; and as a result owed a fiduciary duty to his employer not to divulge that information to anyone not entitled to it. But it could not have been suggested that a security guard owed his employer the full range of directors’ fiduciary duties.

Judges:

Rimer J

Citations:

[1999] CLC 133

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.230275

Russell Mitchell v Ryan Alasia: 2005

The court considered whether the claimant, whom the Court of Protection had decided was a patient and in respect of whom a Receiver had been appointed, was and would continue to be one. The court concluded that, in the context of pursuing his claim for compensation, he was a patient, but that he would not continue a patient indefinitely and would cease to be one three years after the trial. She awarded a sum in respect of the costs of the receivership likely to be incurred during that period.

Judges:

Cox, J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v The Archbishop of Birmingham QBD 30-Jun-2005
Assessment of damages following child abuse by Catholic priest.
Held: General damages of andpound;50,000 were in line with Coxon and were approved. A had not been shown to be, and is not, incapable of managing his affairs. The court differed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228421

Waddle v Wallsend Shipping Co Ltd: 1952

The court considered the relationship between the findings of an inquiry and later judicial proceedings: ‘I think that the competent authorities might consider whether the useful purposes that wreck inquiries serve would not be increased if the report was made available to any court which had to determine the cause of the loss. It is not necessary that the findings of fact in the report should be treated as binding. The opinion of the commissioner based on the facts he finds has at least as high a value as that of an expert based on the facts which he assumes to be proved; and it has the advantage of being quite independent of either side.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 105

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – The European Gateway 1987
The court considered what use should be made by a court of a previous stautory inquiry. After referring to Waddle: ‘It is sufficient if I observe that I do not consider that this dictum (which goes to the admissibility of the report of a wreck . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Education and Skills v Mairs Admn 25-May-2005
The appellant had been dismissed from the social services department of Haringey Borough Council, and her name placed on a list of persons unsuitable to work with children. She had been criticised in the statutory inquiry into the death of Victoria . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228501

Re Forest of Dean Mining Co: 1878

Jessel MR said: ‘Again, directors are called trustees. They are no doubt trustees of assets which have come into their hands, or which are under their control, but they are not trustees of a debt due to the company. The company is the creditor, and, as I said before, they are only the managing partners. In my opinion it is extravagant to call them trustees of a debt when it has not been received. You may of course have an actual trust of a debt, as in the case I put before, where trustees have assigned to them a debt to get in, but that is not the case with directors of a company. A director is the managing partner of the concern, and although a debt is due to the concern I do not think it is right to call him a trustee of that debt which remains unpaid, though his liability in respect of it may in certain cases and in some respects be analogous to the liability of a trustee.’

Judges:

Jessel MR

Citations:

(1878) LR 10 Ch 450

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.230267

Outram v Morewood: 1803

Where a fact or title had been put at issue between the parties in an action for trespass, the ensuing verdict creates an estoppel preventing the same parties relitigating that fact or title. Of a finding of trespass, in relation to some coal lying close under the land of the plaintiff, the court said: ‘A finding upon title in trespass not only operates as a bar to the future recovery of damages for a trespass founded on the same injury, but also operates by way of estoppel to any action for an injury through the same supposed right of possession.’

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough

Citations:

(1803) 3 East 346, [1803] 102 ER 630, [1803] EngR 498

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hamilton v Weston CA 14-Jul-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231143

May v May: 1943

An alien may acquire a domicile of choice in this country even though he might be required to leave at any time by executive action with no right of appeal.

Citations:

[1943] 2 All ER 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mark v Mark HL 30-Jun-2005
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228188

369413 Alberta Ltd v Pocklington: 21 Nov 2000

(Court of Appeal of Alberta) The court set out a number of propositions as to the intention required for inducing a breach of contract. These included inferred intention and recklessness. The Court of Appeal held as follows: ‘In order to find liability [for inference with contractual relations], a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had an ‘intent’ to induce the breach of contract. The intent component of the tort is the most difficult to understand. Malicious motive, unlawful conduct, hatred or intention to harm are not required elements of intent: Allen v Flood, [1898] AC 1 9H.L.(E,));Parks West Mall Ltd v Jennett (1996), 36 Alta.L.R. (3d) 44 (C.A.) at 49; and Atcheson v College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alberta), [1994] 6 W.W.R. 239 (Alta.Q.B) at 246. However, what is required is less clear. The requisite intent has been described with ‘loose, vague and conflicting statements’ that sometime appear to be irreconcilable: Ed Miller Sales, supra, at 230.

Originally, the tort required the breach to be the result of wilful, deliberate and direct conduct which the defendant knew or hoped would result in a violation of the plaintiff’s contractual rights. See for example, Lumley v Gye (1853), 118 E.R. 749, 2 El. and B1.216 (Q.B); and Quinn v Leathem, [1901] A.C.495 (H.L.(I.)).

However, courts soon recognized that intent can also be inferred when the consequences of the conduct were a necessary or reasonable foreseeable result, because ‘people are presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of their acts’: South Wales Miners’ Federation v Glamorgan Coal Company, [1905]A.C.239 (H.L.(E.)) at 244. In Posluns v Toronto Stock Exchange and Gardiner (1965), 46 D.L.R. (2d) 210 (Ont. H.C) at 267; affirmed (1966), 53 D.L.R (2d) 193 (C.A.); affirmed [1968] S.C.R. 330, 67 D.L.R. (2d) 165, the court held that liability would attach if the defendant’s conduct resulted in the breach of a contract ‘of which it was or ought to have been aware’. The intention to bring about a breach of contract need not be the primary object; it is sufficient if the interference is necessarily incidental to attaining the defendant’s primary objective: Fraser v Board of Trustees of Central United Church (1983), 38 O.R. (2d) 97 (H.C.J.) at 103′ and Bank of Nova Scotia v Gaudreau (1985), 48 O.R. (2d) 478 (H.C.J.). [41] Intention can also be established when the defendant was reckless or wilfully blind to a breach. The defendant need not have actually known the precise terms of the contract or that his object only could be accomplished through breach of the contract. ‘If – turning a blind eye – he went about it regardless of whether it would involve a breach, he will be treated just as if he had knowingly procured it’: J.G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 8th Ed. (Sydney: law Book Co., 1992) at 694.

Turning a blind eye may include situations in which the defendant failed to seek advice or employ the means available to obtain the necessary knowledge. For example, in Royal Bank of Canada v Wilton (1995), 165 A.R. 261, D.L.R. (4th) 266 (C.A.), the defendant was uncertain about the enforceability of a contract, had the ‘means of knowledge’ to determine if a legitimate contract existed, but made no efforts to seek advice. This court found the defendant liable because he deliberately chose not to acquire the information, but proceeded on the basis that the contract was unenforceable. Similarly, when there are competing legal interpretations and the defendant adopts an interpretation which will interfere with the plaintiff’s rights, the defendant ‘must at least show that he was advised and honestly believed that he was legally entitled to take that course’: Swiss Bank v Lloyds Bank, [1979] Ch.548 at 580 (CH.D.); reversed on other grounds [1982] A.C. 584 (C.A.); affirmed [1982] A.C. 604 (H.L.(E)).
If the defendant acted under a bona fide belief that contractual rights would not be infringed, liability will not be found even though the belief turned out to be mistaken. But for a mistaken belief to be bona fide, rather than the result of recklessness or wilful blindness, some basis for the belief must exist, and some reasonable effort must have been made by the defendant to learn the truth. In British Industrial Plastics Ltd. v Ferguson, [1940] 1 All E.R. 479 (H.L.(E.)), the defendants who had made the effort to seek advice were not found liable even though their belief was described as ‘illogical’. In Z-Mark International Inc. v Leng Novak Inc. (1996), 12 O.T.C. 33 (Gen. Div.), appeal dismissed (1999), 122 O.A.C. 341, a defendant made inquiries and obtained assurances and a warranty. The court found that the defendant had no reason to doubt the assurance or the warranty and therefore the defendant was not knowingly or recklessly indifferent to a breach of contract.

In some cases a distinction is drawn between direct interference, for which the breach must be foreseeable or reasonable consequence of the conduct, and indirect interference, for which the breach must be necessary or substantially certain consequence. See, for example, L.N. Klar, Tort Law, 2nd ed. (Scarborough: Carswell, 1996) at 498 and 507; Fleming, supra, at 694; D.C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. V Deakin ,[1952] Ch. 646 (C.A.); Bank of Nova Scotia, supra; Garry v Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd., [1988] 1 W.W.R. 289, 45 D.L.R. (4d) 22 (Sask. C.A.); and Atcheson, supra.

[45] As this case involves direct interference, this distinction does not arise. Pocklington, as the director of Gainers, executed the documents to complete the transfer of the 350151 shares to his own company. The transfer caused Gainers to breach s. 12.03(1) of the Master Agreement, which prohibited dispositions of assets without Alberta’s consent. Therefore, if the breach was a reasonable or foreseeable consequence of that transfer, or alternatively, if Pocklington completed the transfer recklessly, was wilfully blind to its consequences, or was indifferent as to whether or not it caused a breach, the necessary intent element for the tort will be met.’

Citations:

(2001) 194 DLR (4th) 109

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others CA 13-Jul-2005
The claimant appealed refusal of his claim for inducing a breach of contract against the sixth defendant. It said that an intention to disturb a contract could be inferred.
Held: A mere recklessness as to whether contractual rights were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.229818

Adlam v Law Society: 1968

The word ‘lawfully’ is often read into a statute

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re Abdul Manan CA 1971
The applicant was a Pakistani seaman who had deserted from his ship and his presence in the UK was unlawful under the 1962 Act. He nevertheless claimed to be entitled to enter and remain as a person who had been ordinarily resident here for two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228187

Rex v Hodgkinson: 1829

The term ‘victuals’ means food or sustenance including drink, and ‘victualler’ means anyone who sells victuals.

Judges:

Lord Tenderden

Citations:

(1829) 10 B and C 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd v Joint London Holdings Ltd and Another CA 7-Oct-2005
The head lease contained a covenant against use of the premises as ‘victuallers’. The tenant sublet the premises for use as a sandwich shop. The tenant argued that the word ‘victuallers’ was to be construed only to prevent the use as ‘licensed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231047

Rex v Countess of Arundel: 1617

As regards a Bill in Parliament, the pronouncement of the words enacting it ‘carry its death’s wound in itself.’

Citations:

(1617) Hobart 109

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231153

Firth v George Ackroyd Junior Ltd: 2000

Citations:

[2000] Lloyds Med Rep 313

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v The Archbishop of Birmingham QBD 30-Jun-2005
Assessment of damages following child abuse by Catholic priest.
Held: General damages of andpound;50,000 were in line with Coxon and were approved. A had not been shown to be, and is not, incapable of managing his affairs. The court differed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228418

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Elms: 16 Jan 1997

‘At the forefront of the test I think I have to go on to consider by way of further analysis both what Millett J meant by ‘functions properly discharged only by a director’, and Mr Lloyd QC meant by ‘on an equal footing’. As to one it seems to me clear that this cannot be limited simply to statutory functions and to my mind it would mean and include any one or more of the following: directing others, putting it very compendiously, committing the company to major obligations, and thirdly (really I think what we are concerned with here) taking part in an equally based collective decision process at board level, i.e. at the level of a director in effect with a foot in the board room. As to Mr Lloyd’s test, I think it is very much on the lines of that third test to which I have just referred. It is not, I think, in any way a question of equality of power but equality of ability to participate in the notional board room. Is he somebody who is simply advising and, as it were, withdrawing having advised, or somebody who joins the other directors, de facto or de jure, in decisions which affect the future of the company?’

Judges:

Judge Cooke

Citations:

Unreported 16 January 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd 1994
Millett J described a de facto director as: ‘a person who assumes to act as a director. He is held out as a director by the company, claims and purports to be a director, although never actually or validly appointed as such. To establish that a . .

Cited by:

Approved – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Tjolle and Others ChD 9-May-1997
Delay and the probable short period of disqualification are proper reasons for Secretary of State to consider discontinuing proceedings. As to whether a person ‘assumes to act as a director’: ‘It may be difficult to postulate any one decisive test. . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.230269

Sheffield City Council v Ali: Admn 7 Jul 2005

The taxi driver had been acquitted for making a false statement to support his application. The magistrates had found that the form he had been requested to use had not been approved properly by the authority. It was accepted that the information, as to previous convictions, could properly have been asked of him.
Held: The information requested was plainly within the scope of an officer to whom this task had been delegated, and the authority’s appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1613 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 57(3), Local Government Act 1972 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices Admn 30-May-2002
The Chief Constable applied for anti-social behaviour orders, but the applications were made by his officers under purported delegated powers. The district judge rejected the applications saying that the power to make such an application could not . .
Cited – Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works CA 1943
Ministers May Act through Civil Servants
The plaintiffs owned a factory which was to be requisitioned. They sought a judicial review of the lawfulness of the order making the requisition, saying that the 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Local Government

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.229310

George Barker Transport Ltd v Eynon: CA 1974

It was incontrovertible that ‘the appointment of a receiver operates as an equitable assignment (by way of charge) of the property of the company to the debenture holder.’

Judges:

Stamp LJ

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 462

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.230293

Longbottom and Longbottom v Bingley Urban District Council: LT 1974

When calculating compensation on the compulsory purchase of property occupied by a partnership, an allowance should be made for managerial or supervisory wages by adding back the wages or drawings of both partners to the average net profits for three years. This was because the council were required to take the premises and the business as they found them and the business was a partnership of the two claimants and it was irrelevant that it might have been bought by a limited company if sold as a going concern.

Citations:

[1974] 14 RVR 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Halil v London Borough of Lambeth LT 2-Mar-2001
LT COMPENSATION – compulsory acquisition of leasehold shop and premises – total extinguishment of business – disturbance – analysis of accounts – treatment of wife’s earnings – depreciation of capital assets – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.230996

The Law Society v Alec Leslie Wheeler and John Michael Stephens: Admn 21 Jul 2005

The solicitors had obtained pemission from the Society to employ a struck off solicitor. The Society came to allege that the actual employment differed and was not covered by the consent, The Society appealed a finding that the solicitors were not guilty of unbefitting conduct in their supervision of the struck off solicitor.
Held: Nothing done by the Society could be interpreted to constitute an extension of the permission. Strict supervision had not been imposed. The struck off solicitor had caused further losses. The findings of the SDT were inconsistent but the solicitor must inevitably be struck off for unbefitting conduct.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Lightman Mr Justice Crane

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1602 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.229061

Smith v Smith: 1961

(Supreme Court of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland) The husband, a fugitive from justice in England, had entered Southern Rhodesia on a false passport and his entry and residence had at all times been unlawful under the Immigration Act. The wife obtained a declaration of nullity, but on the husband’s appeal, the court questioned its own jurisdiction. The court conducted a full review of the authorities.
Held: The court distinguished the cases of precarious residence and condoned residence, and found more helpful some South African cases on the statutory concept of domicile in their Immigration Act (which was deliberately distinguished from the common law concept in another case cited by Dicey and Morris, Parker v Principal Immigration Officer [1926] CPD 255) and the cases holding that a domicile of choice acquired during precarious residence was destroyed by actual deportation, at least where there was also a prohibition on return (including Ex parte Macleod [1946] CPD 312, the last of the cases cited by Dicey and Morris; see also Ex parte Donelly 1915, WLD 29; Ex parte Gordon 1937, WLD 35). He concluded: ‘I should formulate the proposition in this way. Acquisition of a domicile of choice requires both residence and animus manendi. Not every kind of de facto residence will suffice. It must usually be residence of one’s free will, or at least, if it is not, the residence can be of no value as evidence of an animus manendi. The animus manendi must be both genuine and honest. An intention to persist indefinitely in a course of unlawful conduct may be genuine: but it cannot be honest. Fears that the worst may happen do not necessarily preclude a sufficient animus. But knowledge that one is residing only in defiance of the law, and will so continue indefinitely, makes it impossible to have an animus manendi of the requisite quality. I think also that the matter may properly be put in another way. The animus manendi, though it does not require an absolute intention to reside permanently, must at least be an unconditional intention to reside for an indefinite period. . . . In this case, the intention of the appellant, putting it at the highest, can only have been, ‘I will stay in Rhodesia if I can escape the attention of the authorities whose statutory duty is to deport me, and who will at once do so if they learn the true facts about me.’

Judges:

Briggs ACJ

Citations:

[1962] (3) SA 930

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Not persuasive – Jablonowski v Jablonowski 1972
(Ontario High Court) The petitioner had met both the residence and animus requirements despite having entered Canada illegally. . .
Cited – Mark v Mark HL 30-Jun-2005
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228190

Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v Marks and Spencer plc: 1990

Italian regulations are not directly enforceable within the United Kingdom.

Citations:

[1990] FSR 530

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
Cited – Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd CA 20-Jun-2007
The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.226088

C v C (Ancillary Relief: Nuptial Settlement): FD 2 Apr 2004

Application for ancillary relief to vary post-nuptial settlement.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 742 (Fam), [2004] Fam 141

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Radmacher v Granatino CA 2-Jul-2009
Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the . .
Leave – Charalambous v Charalambous; C v C (Ancillary Relief: Nuptial Settlement) CA 30-Jul-2004
The parties had been wealthy. Whilst still married, substantial sums had been placed in a trust. Their business interests had crashed and both faced personal bankruptcy. The husband appealed an order setting aside the trust.
Held: A clause in . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.221039

Smith v Smith: FD 2000

Ancillary relief

Judges:

Thorpe J

Citations:

[2000] 3 FCR 374

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement) FD 17-Jan-2005
The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, saying that the judge had applied the terms of a separation agreement without acknowledging that that agreement had been entered into without full disclosure having been made. Had the judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.224379

Regina v David Newton: 1974

The Lord Chief Justice was unable to accept that someone with 127 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, a little over half the legal limit, did not feel any effect. The process of considering whether special reasons might avoid a disqualification, the magistrates had a two stage. First to test the evidence to see whether special reasons existed, and second whether as an exercise of discretion, they should not disqualify.

Citations:

[1974] RTR 451

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v O’Connor and Chapman and Others 1991
The court looked at the elements needed to be established to support a defence to a charge of driving with excess alcohol on the basis that the defendant’s drinks had been spiked: ‘On the authorities, it is now clearly established that the matters . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Sharma Admn 27-Apr-2005
The prosecution appealed by way of case stated a finding by the magistrates of special reasons for the non-disqualification of the respondent for driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had drunk acohol, but unknown to her a friend had added . .
Cited – Woolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jun-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He claimed to have a medical condition under which the contents of his stomach would regurgitate into his mouth, and that this could exaggerate the alcohol reading.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.226028

Lord Newborough v Jones: CA 1974

The landlord, not finding his tenant at home, served a notice to quit by pushing it under the door of a house occupied by the tenant. The tenant claimed that the notice had disappeared below the linoleum, and had not been found for some considerable time, and that therefore he had not been served.
Held: The service was valid. The landlord need serve the notice only, by a means which a reasonable person minded to bring the document to the attention of the person to be served would adopt.

Citations:

[1974] 3 WLR 52, [1974] 3 All ER 17

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 92(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.223119

W v L: CA 1974

For civil patients, it matters a great deal whether the classification of their condition is ‘severe subnormality’ or just ‘subnormality’ or whether it is ‘mental illness’ or ‘psychopathic disorder’. Lawton LJ discussed the construction of the phrase ‘mental illness’: ‘The answer in my judgment is to be found in the advice which Lord Reid gave in Cozens v. Brutus [1973] AC 854 at 861, namely that ordinary words in the English language should be construed in the way that ordinary sensible people would construe them. That being the right test, then I ask myself what would the ordinary sensible person have said about the patient’s condition in this case . . In my judgment such a person would have said ‘well the fellow is obviously mentally ill’. It is that application of the sensible person’s assessment of the condition, plus the medical indication, which in my judgment brought the case within the classification of mental illness and justified the finding of the County Court Judge.’

Judges:

Lawton LJ

Citations:

[1974] QB 711

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Brutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .

Cited by:

Cited – B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked whether a patient detained for treatment under the 1983 Act can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as . .
Cited – Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA 19-Dec-2002
Capacity for Litigation
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
Cited – McFaddens (A Firm) v Platford TCC 30-Jan-2009
The claimant firm of solicitors had been found negligent, and now sought a contribution to the damages awarded from the barrister defendant. They had not managed properly issues as to their clients competence to handle the proceedings.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.224203

Ortwein v Rugby Mansions Ltd: 2004

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

[2004] 1 Costs LR 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Elaborated – Giambrone and others v JMC Holidays Ltd (Formerly Sunworld Holidays Ltd) QBD 20-Dec-2002
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Ross v Stonewood Securities Ltd ChD 7-Oct-2004
The claimant appealed an order reducing his award of costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.216346

G Orlik (Meat Products) Ltd v Hastings and Thanet Building Society: 1974

The tenant requested a new lease and the renewal of personal rights attached to the first lease.
Held: The court could not countenance renewal of purely personal rights under the 1954 Act. It was said that: ‘The object of Part II of the Act is to give security of tenure to business tenants by, inter alia, conferring power on the court to order a new tenancy on the property comprised in ‘the holding’, and, however widely expressed, section 35 cannot, in our judgment, consistently with the scheme found in Part II, be construed to enable the court to enlarge the holding, for example, by ordering the grant of an easement over the landlord’s land or conferring rights over the landlord’s land not hitherto enjoyed.’

Citations:

[1974] 29 PandCR 126

Statutes:

Lanldord and Tenant Act 1954 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – J Murphy and Sons Ltd v Railtrack Plc CA 29-Apr-2002
A lease was granted of land, but the landlord had no land over which it could grant any rights to access the land. The rent came to be reviewed. The tenant had independently obtained access rights. The landlord wanted the lack of access rights to be . .
Applied – The Picture Warehouse Ltd v Cornhill Investments Ltd QBD 23-Jan-2008
The tenant appealed against a decision that provision for parking should not be included in the new tenancy granted to him under the Act. The original lease had been intended to be varied to move the tenant to allow some rebuilding, and new parking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.216669

Holiday Inns Inc v Broadhead: 1974

The parties negotiated for a lease, but never signed a contract. The plaintiff expended considerable sums to try to get planning, and once acquired it sought to buy the land, and claimed that Mr Broadhead had taken an unconscionable advantage, entitling the plaintiff to relief in equity. The defendant had repeatedly assured the plaintiffs that he would stand by his word.
Held: Goff J said: ‘while they [i.e. the plaintiff] have never suggested that the understanding, arrangement or bargain was sufficiently precise to be enforceable as a contract, they claim to be entitled to relief in equity.’ and ‘In my judgment the authorities clearly establish that there is a head of equity under which relief will be given where the owner of property seeks to take an unconscionable advantage of another by allowing or encouraging him to spend money, whether or not on the owner’s property, in the belief, known to the owner, that the person expending the money will enjoy some right or benefit over the owner’s property which the owner then denies him. This arises where the person expending the money does so under a mistaken belief that the property is his own, that belief being known to the other, as in Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129, but mistake is not an essential element of a claim to relief of this nature. The authorities also establish, in my judgment, that this relief can be granted although the arrangement or understanding between the parties was not sufficiently certain to be enforceable as a contract, and that the court has a wide, albeit of course judicial, discretion to what extent relief should be given and what form it should take.’ and ‘Mr Waite [counsel for the defendants] . . rested his case on what he described, and rightly described, as the crucial question whether there was present a belief on the part of the plaintiffs, induced by Mr Broadhead’s words or silence, that they would receive a sufficient interest in the land to justify the expenditure. He said this was an arrangement between commercial men dealing with each other at arm’s length with their eyes open, and so the plaintiffs must be taken to have elected as a matter of commercial judgment to run the risk that Mr Broadhead might, as I add he clearly did, have private reservations undisclosed at the date of the expenditure which might frustrate the conclusion of the anticipated bargain, and indeed they might have similar reservations themselves. I am wholly unable to draw any such inference or conclusion. Mr Wilson’s [the head of the plaintiff] evidence, which I accept, was that he thought this was a gentleman’s agreement which would be honoured. Mr Tigrett [the plaintiff’s representative] in his evidence, which I also accept, said that no reservations or thought of backing our ever occurred to him, and the whole tenor of Mr Broadhead’s conduct and letters was calculated to make the plaintiffs believe that if planning permission were obtained they would have a straight 3 and 1 lease on the standard terms. I am satisfied and find as a fact that both Mr Wilson and Mr Tigrett believed that and Mr Broadhead well knew that they did. His failure to inform them of his true state of mind was deceitful and unconscionable. ‘ The plaintiff had made out a clear case for relief. The plaintiff’s equity was best satisfied by a declaration that the site was held upon trust for sale, and, as to the proceeds of sale, after paying various costs and expenses, on trust for the plaintiff and defendants in equal shares.

Judges:

Goff J

Citations:

(1974) 232 EG 951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ramsden v Dyson HL 11-May-1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Principles for Proprietary Estoppel
A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.223729

Fowler v Tierney: 1974

A young woman was injured in a collision with a motor car when she was travelling as a pillion passenger on a motor scooter. She brought an action claiming damages against the driver of the motor scooter. The defender pleaded, inter alia, volenti non fit injuria.
Held: It was proved that the defender evinced an initial reluctance to give the pursuer a lift, but he did inform her that he had only a provisional licence, either by using those actual words or words to equivalent effect, and that something was said by the defender relating to the pursuer taking a risk or to it being her fault if anything happened. The defender’s plea was repelled.

Judges:

Lord Ordinary, Lord Maxwell

Citations:

1974 SLT (Notes) 23

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.226227

Scott v Jelf: 1974

The defendant was accused of driving whilst disqualified. He drove in breach of the conditions of a provisional licence having been disqualified until he took the test.
Held: Lord Widgery CJ: ‘That provision has appeared in the road traffic legislation for a good many years and its purpose is obvious. If the man has to take a test before his disqualification can be removed, then machinery must be provided to enable him to take the test. Taking the test involves driving on a road and thus involves the obtaining by him of a provisional licence, as was done in this case. If the defendant had been driving on the road with a qualified passenger he would have committed no offence because, although still disqualified within the meaning of section 99, he would have the specific excuse provided for him by section 98(3). He did not have a qualified driver, and the issue in this case is whether the fact that he drove in defiance of the conditions attached to a provisional licence had the effect of removing the protection of section 98(3) altogether so as to make him a driver driving when disqualified, or whether it had prosecuted under section 88(6) of the Act for failing to comply with the terms of a provisional licence. That is the issue.’ and ‘I find myself left in absolutely no doubt that section 98(3) is carefully worded so as to allow a disqualified driver to use a provisional licence on the road provided he complies with the terms of the provisional licence. I think that that is the only meaning which can be derived from the language used if given its ordinary meaning. The terms of section 98(3) provide an exemption for a disqualified driver driving on a road provided that he holds a provisional licence and drives in accordance with the provisions of that licence. I cannot understand why specific reference should have been made to driving in accordance with the conditions of the provisional licence unless it was intended that the exemption provided by the subsection should be restricted to those who drive in accordance with the provisional licence to which it refers.’ MacKenna J: ‘A person disqualified for holding a licence until he has passed another driving test is a disqualified person within the meaning of section 99. He is forbidden to drive unless he can bring himself within section 98(3). That subsection gives him a limited right to drive, notwithstanding the provisions of section 99. He can drive if he obtains a provisional licence and if he drives in accordance with the conditions subject to which it is granted. That is what section 98(3) says and it cannot reasonably be given any other meaning. If the disqualified person drives otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of the provisional licence, he loses the protection of this subsection and is caught by section 99.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J

Citations:

[1974] RTR 256

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker Admn 19-Oct-2004
Driving whilst disqualified – ban expired but no test taken – burden of evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.220169

Nicholas v Nicholas: CA 1984

The Court upheld an appeal against an order for the husband to procure the transfer to the wife of a property belonging to a company in which he held a 71% shareholding, the other 29% being held by his business associates. However, both members of the court suggested, obiter, that the result might have been different had it not been for the position of the minority shareholders.
Cumming-Bruce LJ thought that, in that situation: ‘the court does and will pierce the corporate veil and make an order which has the same effect as an order that would be made if the property was vested in the majority shareholder.’
Dillon LJ said: ‘if the company was a one-man company and the alter ego of the husband, I would have no difficulty in holding that there was power to order a transfer of the property.’

Judges:

Cumming-Bruce and Dillon LJJ

Citations:

[1984] FLR 285

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Thomas v Thomas CA 2-May-1995
H was a wealthy businessman, but, as a member of Lloyds, he had been required to charge the family home to secure potential liabilities. Also, the company of which he was managing director had always paid out only smaller sums by way of dividends, . .
Cited – Re W (ex-parte orders) FD 2000
The circumstances in which ex parte relief is obtained in the Family Division are likely to vary very widely. Moreover, relief is often granted by the Division in circumstances which are very much removed from those in which ex parte relief will be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Company

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.223621

Green v Green: FD 1993

In an ancillary relief application, Connell J awarded to the wife assets vested in a limited company whose entire share capital was owned by the husband.

Judges:

Connell J

Citations:

[1993] 1 FLR 326

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McGladdery v McGladdery CA 21-Jul-1999
A husband having been ordered to transfer his shares in a private company to his wife, found that she had breached the undertaking she had given as part of the order, and had used her majority shareholding to dispose of company assets out of the . .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Thomas v Thomas CA 2-May-1995
H was a wealthy businessman, but, as a member of Lloyds, he had been required to charge the family home to secure potential liabilities. Also, the company of which he was managing director had always paid out only smaller sums by way of dividends, . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Company

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.223624

Wilbraham v Colclough and others: 1952

Citations:

[1952] 1 All ER 979

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Egerton v Rutter CA 1951
A tenant of an agricultural holding died intestate leaving her son and daughter in actual possession. Almost two months after the tenant’s death and before any Grant of Letters of Administration the landlord served a notice to quit addressed to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Railtrack Plc (In Railway Administration) v Guinness Limited CA 20-Feb-2003
The case involved an appeal from the Land’s Tribunal arbitration award setting compensation for land to be acquired. The question was whether the value should have been that acceptable to a willing seller, or to a ‘a company regulated and subsidised . .
Cited – Lodgepower Ltd v Taylor CA 22-Oct-2004
The claimant was a tenant of agricultural land. He sought repairs, and served a notice on the executors of the now deceased landlord, but only later were letters of administration granted to the defendants. The judge had found the service of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.218727

Rees v Munday: QBD 1974

The defendant advertised in a motor trade journal, to sell a vehicle, which was ‘in first class condition throughout.’ In the same advertisement was the reference to it being of ’12 yard’ capacity.’ The Act applied differently according to whether a vehicle had been supplied when the contract was made or only upon subsequent delivery. The Court considered the meaning of the word ‘supply’ within the 1968 Act.
Held: The supply occurred when the goods were delivered: ‘one cannot get away from the fact, I think, that when the advertisement was published there was only one lorry of that description in the seller’s possession, and I think that the description was applied to that lorry when the advertisement itself was published. I think that is an example of the trade description being used in a manner likely to be taken as referring to the goods because if there was only one lorry of that description, that fact would indicate to anybody that the trade description applied to that one vehicle.’ and ‘For my part I think that the proper construction of this Act requires supply to be treated here as the date of delivery. I can see that there are arguments which might be advanced for applying the Sale of Goods Act 1893 to this situation and saying that an article is supplied when the property passes by virtue of that Act. But I think . . that that would be an unnecessary and undesirable complication to attach to this already somewhat difficult Act, and I think that the proper meaning of supply in this context is the delivery of the goods as delivered by the seller, or notification that they are available for delivery if they are to be collected by the buyer.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 1284

Statutes:

Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
Cited – Decidebloom Ltd (T/A Stoneacre Motor Group) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 10-Dec-2008
The defendant brought a case stated in its defence of allegations under the 1968 Act arising from the sale of a Fiat Punto. It was said to have advertised ‘Drive away a new Fiat Punto for a certain price. The car offered was pre-registered. The only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Consumer

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.225197

Re Bugle Press Ltd: ChD 1961

Two shareholders held more than 90% of the issued shares of the company. To get rid of the holder of the remaining shares, they incorporated another company for the purpose of acquiring all the shares of the company. The acquiring company offered to purchase the company’s shares at a proper value. The majority shareholders accepted the offer but it was refused by the minority shareholder. The acquiring company gave notice of intention to exercise the statutory power of compulsory acquisition under the section. The minority shareholder applied that the transferee company was neither entitled nor bound to acquire his shares on the terms offered notwithstanding the approval of 9/10ths of the shareholders. The minority said the offer undervalued his shares. The majority shareholders did not file any evidence verifying their valuation.
Held: The court made the declarations sought. In circumstances where the assenting 90% majority were unconnected with the offeror the normal burden of proof rested on the dissenting minority to show grounds why the court should ‘order otherwise’, but that did not apply where there was a connection between the assenting majority and the offeror, in particular, where the acquiring company was simply the alter ego of the assenting majority. As to a submission that the respondent’s use of section 209 was contrary to the purpose of the section: ‘I am bound to say that I see very great force in that argument. Whether, in such a case, if the court were fully satisfied that the price offered to the minority shareholders was a fair price to be offered for their shares, the section ought to be allowed to operate according to its tenor is, I think, a matter which it is unnecessary for me to decide today because, in my view, on the facts of this particular case, at any rate, the onus must rest on Mr Instone’s clients [the majority shareholders] to satisfy the court that the price offered is a fair price. In the ordinary case of an offer under this section, where the 90 % majority who accept the offer are unconnected with the persons who are concerned with making the offer, the court pays the greatest attention to the views of that majority.
This case, however, seems to me to be quite the reverse of that, because here, although as a matter of law the body making the offer must be regarded as distinct from the persons who hold shares in that body, nevertheless as a matter of substance the persons who are putting forward this offer are the majority shareholdersIn a case of this kind it seems to me that the onus must clearly be on the other side, and that it must be incumbent on the majority shareholders to satisfy the court that the scheme is one with which the minority shareholder ought reasonably to be compelled to fall in with.’ The acquiring company had not discharged that burden.
Harman LJ described the company as ‘nothing but a little hut built around’ the shareholders and their scheme a ‘hollow sham.’

Judges:

Buckley J, Harman LJ

Citations:

[1961] Ch 270

Statutes:

Companies Act 1948 209

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Re Bugle Press Ltd CA 2-Jan-1961
Shareholders with over 90% of the issued shares sought to acquire the remaining shares, and create another company to do so. That company offered to purchase the shares at a valuation. The majority shareholders accepted but the minority shareholder . .
Cited – In the Matter of British American Racing (Holdings) Limited; In the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 ChD 16-Dec-2004
The company raced in the Formula 1 series. Its main sponsors had been British American Tobacco, but because of restrictions of tobacco advertising, the company lost substantial revenue and fell in to loss, and entered into an individual voluntary . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.221021

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Re an Application for Judicial Review: CANI 6 Apr 2001

Appeal from a judgment that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) had not been invested with a statutory power to intervene or act as amicus curiae in legal proceedings.

Citations:

[2001] NICA 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland, Human Rights

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.201968

Firsteel Ltd v Sherwin and others: EAT 13 Dec 1993

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 654 – 91 – 1312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.210854

Prescott v Fellowes: CA 1958

The court considered whether a deed of trust created a post nuptial settlement within the 1950 Act: ‘Inasmuch as the deed vested no property in trustees and created no successive legal or beneficial interests it had none of the attributes of a settlement which are familiar to conveyancing practitioners. It has, however, long since been established by decisions which are binding on this court that a disposition of property may a ‘settlement’ for the purposes of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1950, notwithstanding that it would not be regarded as a settlement of property for any other purpose. The liberality with which this legislation has been construed is sufficiently exemplified by Bosworthick v. Bosworthick. In that case a wife executed, a few years after her marriage, a bond which secured to her husband an annuity for his life. The marriage was dissolved in 1925 and the wife applied to the court for an order extinguishing her liability under the bond. This court, affirming the decision of Lord Merrivale P., held that the bond was a post-nuptial settlement for the purposes of section 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, and section 192 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925; and the wife’s application succeeded. In the course of his judgment Romer J., who was sitting as a member of this court, said that the authorities established ‘that where a ‘husband has made a provision for his wife, or a wife for her husband, in the nature of periodical payments, that amounts to a settlement within the meaning of the sections. That may appear to be a very liberal construction of the sections, but I think that it is no more liberal a construction than should be given to them having regard to the obvious purposes for which they were enacted by the legislature.’

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1958] P 260

Statutes:

Matriimonial Cause Act 1950

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Charalambous v Charalambous; C v C (Ancillary Relief: Nuptial Settlement) CA 30-Jul-2004
The parties had been wealthy. Whilst still married, substantial sums had been placed in a trust. Their business interests had crashed and both faced personal bankruptcy. The husband appealed an order setting aside the trust.
Held: A clause in . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Trusts

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.199724

Charalambous v Charalambous; C v C (Ancillary Relief: Nuptial Settlement): CA 30 Jul 2004

The parties had been wealthy. Whilst still married, substantial sums had been placed in a trust. Their business interests had crashed and both faced personal bankruptcy. The husband appealed an order setting aside the trust.
Held: A clause in the trust deed could not prevent application of the Act. The judge had been correct to hold that it remained a post-nuptial settlement despite the removal of either party as beneficiary. The courts of Jersey were prepared to heed such orders. The appeal was refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice May Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1030, Times 07-Sep-2004, [2005] Fam 250

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Charalambous v Charalambous FD 5-Mar-2004
The family had been wealthy. Assets were placed into a trust. The businesses fell into difficulty, and the parties divorced. The wife requested the court to set aside the trust.
Held: The trust was to be varied as a post-nuptial settlement. . .
Cited – Nunneley v Nunneley 1890
The court considerd the power to vary a trust: ‘The language of the Act is exceedingly wide. I am clearly of opinion that the power thereby conferred extends to a settlement though made in another country and according to the law of that country.’ . .
Cited – Jacques de Cavel v Louise de Cavel ECJ 27-Mar-1979
The term ‘rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 1 of the Convention, includes not only property arrangements specifically and exclusively envisaged by certain national . .
Cited – Brooks v Brooks HL 29-Jun-1995
A director’s pension scheme could be treated as a post-nuptial marriage settlement where the director was the only scheme member. It was thus a matrimonial asset capable of variation by a court in ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. The court . .
Cited – Compton v Compton FD 1960
The court considered whether trusts were to be deemed to be post nuptial settlements.
Marshall J said: ‘The first point taken by Mr. Beyfus on the wife’s behalf is fundamental. He has submitted that the four settlements in question are not . .
Cited – Forsyth v Forsyth 1891
Jeune J said: ‘Nunneley v. Nunneley seems to me to go the whole length of deciding that whatever be the law applicable to the settlements the effect of S.5 of the 22 and 23 Vict. c. 61, is to give this court power to vary the settlements in its . .
Cited – Prescott v Fellowes CA 1958
The court considered whether a deed of trust created a post nuptial settlement within the 1950 Act: ‘Inasmuch as the deed vested no property in trustees and created no successive legal or beneficial interests it had none of the attributes of a . .
Leave – C v C (Ancillary Relief: Nuptial Settlement) FD 2-Apr-2004
Application for ancillary relief to vary post-nuptial settlement. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino SC 20-Oct-2010
The parties, from Germany and France married and lived at first in England. They had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany which would have been valid in either country of origin. H now appealed against a judgment which bound him to it, . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Trusts

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.199801

The Gazelle: 1844

A vessel was damaged by collision. What was the amount to be paid to the owners of the damaged vessel for its repair?
Held: The measure of the indemnification to which the owner of the damaged vessel was entitled was co-extensive with the amount of the damage: ‘The right against the wrongdoer is for a restitutio in integrum, and this restitution he is bound to make without calling upon the party injured to assist him in any way whatsoever. If the settlement of the indemnification be attended with any difficulty (and in those cases difficulties must and will frequently occur), the party in fault must bear the inconvenience. He has no right to fix this inconvenience upon the injured party; and if that party derives incidentally a greater benefit than mere indemnification, it arises only from the impossibility of otherwise effecting such indemnification without exposing him to some loss or burden, which the law will not place upon him.’ It is not open to the wrongdoer to require the injured party to bear any part of the cost of obtaining such indemnification for his loss as will place him in the same position as he was before the accident.

Judges:

Dr Lushington

Citations:

(1844) 2 W Rob 279

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – Bacon v Cooper (Metals) Ltd 1982
A machine, a fragmentiser was broken. The defendant had supplied unsuitable scrap to be fed into the machine in breach of contract. The rotor had broken which would normally have had a life of 7 years of which it had nearly four years to run. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188637

Schneider v Norris: 1814

The name of a seller was printed on a bill of parcels but he in turn wrote on the contract the name of the purchaser.
Held: The seller had adopted the writing of his own name and a signature within the Statute of Frauds. The essential attributes of a signature are recognition and approval of the contents of the document; it does not necessarily need to be in manuscript form provided that the party adopts the printed name as his own.

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough CJ

Citations:

(1814) 2 MandS 286

Statutes:

Statute of Frauds 1677 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188226

Scott v Brown, Doering, McNab and Co: 1892

The plaintiff sought rescission of a contract for the purchase of shares, but failed because the contract had been entered into with the sole object of rigging the market by inducing the public to believe that there was a real market for the shares and that they were at a premium. The intention was not to make use of the shares in an unlawful way but to make use of the share contract to defraud the public.
Held: The plaintiff was found to have created a false market in shares by his false and fictitious acts.

Citations:

[1892] 2 QB 724

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 21st Century Logistic Solutions Limited (In Liquidation) v Madysen Limited QBD 17-Feb-2004
The vendor sold computers to the defendant, intending not to account to the commissioners for the VAT. The seller went into liquidation, and the liquidator sought payment. The purchaser had been unaware of the intended fraud and resisted payment. . .
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194059

Gregory v Mighell: 1811

Citations:

(1811) 18 Ves 328

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.193608

Jones v Carter: 1846

The landlord served a declaration in ejectment from the premises.
Held: The service operated as a forfeiture, and a final election to determine the lease, and it was not possible for the landlord later to demand rent. ”After such an act, by which the lessor treats the lessee as a trespasser, the lessee would know that he was no longer to consider himself as holding under the lease, and bound to perform the covenants contained in it; and it would be unjust to permit the landlord again to change his mind, and hold the tenant responsible for the breach of duty after that time.’ The act there relied on as determining the landlord’s option was bringing an ejection. How does that apply here ? Here, the landlord, by bringing an action for rent accruing subsequently to the accrual of the forfeiture, and obtaining payment of the rent by means of that action, has clearly made his election to treat the lessee as still being his tenant.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

[1846] 15 MandW 718, [1846] 153 ER 1040

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dendy v Nicholls 1858
For a landlord to demand and sue for rent, when he knew of facts entitling him to forfeit the lease, amounted to waiver of forfeiture and prevented him from bringing a later action for ejectment. Referring to Jones v Carter: (Crowder J) ‘Here, there . .
Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188155

Gray v Haig and Son: 1855

Gray was the agent for Haig and Son, selling whisky on commission. On the termination of the agency a dispute arose as to the amount of the commission due and an account was ordered. Gray had destroyed his books, which were essential to the taking of the account, after the dispute had arisen.
Held: ‘In a case before me this year, one partner, several years before the institution of the suit, and upwards of twenty years after the closing of the partnership business, and when the accounts had been settled between him and his partners by arbitration, and never afterwards opened or disputed, had destroyed the books which contained the accounts of that partnership, I treated lightly the circumstance of that destruction, and did not suffer it to prejudice his case. But the case is very different when the transactions to which they relate are recent, where the accounts arising from them have not been finally adjusted, or the balance ascertained or paid, and still more when that destruction takes place by the person who has actually filed a bill to have the accounts taken of those very transactions to which these books relate. In such a case some very cogent reason must be given to satisfy the Court that the destruction was proper or justifiable, and, in the absence of any such reason, which is the fact here, I am compelled to act on the principle laid down in the well-known case of Armory v Delamirie , and presume, as against the person who destroyed the evidence, every thing most unfavourable to him, which is consistent with the rest of the facts, which are either admitted or proved.’ and ‘But in all cases of contradictory evidence, whether between a witness and a Defendant, or between two witnesses who give evidence in direct contradiction to each other, with regard to a matter equally within the knowledge and cognizance of both, it is the duty of the judicial tribunal to search for facts which may corroborate or invalidate the testimony of either witness. In this case there were books containing the account of the transactions, which would have afforded clear and distinct evidence to enable the Court to judge which of the two was to be believed. This evidence Mr. Gray has himself removed, and removed, as I consider proved by his own evidence, after the contest relating to these accounts had arisen between himself and Haig and Son. He must suffer the necessary consequence of the absence of that evidence so occasioned; and I consider myself bound to believe that these books, if now forthcoming, would prove the truth of the statements contained in Rikey’s evidence.’

Citations:

(1855) 20 Beav 219

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD 1722
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Malhotra v Dhawan CA 26-Feb-1997
There had been litigation as to the payment due on fees earned during the partnership. One party had destroyed the evidence which would have settled many issues. The court discussed the principle that it should presume all against a destroyer of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.193789

Crouch v Kidsons Impey: 1996

Citations:

[1996] IRLR 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited CA 20-Jan-1998
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194007

Re Fryer: 1857

The acts of a solicitor as an express trustee are not within the scope of the ordinary business of a solicitor.

Citations:

(1857) 3 K and J 317

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.193891

Kingston’s (Duchess) Case: 1776

The judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties coming incidentaly in question in another court for a different purpose. The principle of litigation privilege is restricted to legal advice.

Citations:

(1776) 1 East PC 468, (1776) 20 ST 336

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Penn-Texas Corporation v Murat Anstalt (No 2) CA 1964
The court considered a claim for an issue estoppel arising from a foreign judgment: ‘In my opinion a previous judgment between the same parties is only conclusive on matters which are conclusive and necessary to the decision. It is not conclusive on . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Ecclesiastical, Estoppel, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188235

Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd: EAT 7 Oct 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0176 – 02 – 0710

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 17-Jun-2003
. .
See Also – Hossain v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 17-Jan-2003
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.191873

Pennard Dock Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds: 1963

Citations:

[1963] 1 LI 359

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd CA 7-Apr-1993
A local authority had sold surplus land to a developer and obtained a covenant that the developer would develop the land in accordance with an existing planning permission. The sole purpose of the local authority in imposing the covenant was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.193780

Hossain v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd: EAT 17 Jan 2003

EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic).

Citations:

[2003] EAT 176 – 02 – 1701, [2003] UKEAT 176 – 02 – 1701, EAT/176/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 17-Jun-2003
. .
See Also – Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.191298

Johnstone v Hudlestone: 1825

Where a tenant gave an invalid notice to quit, which accordingly did not have effect to determine the tenancy, upon his holding over after the notice was given the landlord was not entitled to double rent under s. 18. (Bayley J) ‘I think that the Legislature did not intend to punish the tenant for his caprice, but to reimburse the landlord for any injury he might sustain by losing his bargain with a new tenant.’ As to the recital to section 18: ‘It is true that the enacting words are carried beyond the recital, but I think that effect must be given to all the words of the clause, and that the enacting words must be construed with reference to the mischief intended to be remedied. The fair construction of that clause [s 18] appears to be, that it shall only apply in case the tenant shall give the notice contemplated in the preamble… so as to make it binding on the landlord to accept possession of the premises.’ (Holroyd J) ‘Here the landlord claims rent under the statute, and treats the tenant as a tortfeasor…’

Judges:

Bayley J, Holroyd J

Citations:

[1825] 4 B and C 922

Statutes:

Distress for Rent Act 1737 (II Geo 2, c 19) 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188156

Regina (Bannister) v Guildford Crown Court: Admn 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 221 (Admin)

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Gibson and Another) v Winchester Crown Court QBD 24-Feb-2004
The defendant challenged extension of the custody time limit, saying that the prosecuting authorities had not acted with due diligence to take the case forward.
Held: Though the prosecutor had not acted as required, in this case the actual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194797

Hargroves, Aronson and Co v Hartopp: CA 1905

The tenants of a building of which the defendants were landlords sought damages after a rainwater gutter became stopped up and the defendants failed to clear it out for a few days after receiving notice of the stoppage.
Held: The landlords were in breach of a duty of care to the plaintiffs and were liable for the damage done. If a building owner retains common parts which have to be maintained to protect the safe use of the demised properties, he has an obligation to take reasonable care that the parts he retains are not in such a condition as to cause damage to the tenant or to the premises demised.
Lord Alverstone said: ‘A person who maintains an artificial thing like a gutter used for the very purpose of carrying off the rainwater from the roof in an improper condition after notice may be said, in my opinion to be guilty of an act of commission, and he is, in my opinion, under a duty to take care that as a result of that act no damage happens to the occupants of the house.’

Judges:

Lord Alverstone

Citations:

[1905] 1 KB 472

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Followed – Tennant Radiant Heat Ltd v Warrington Development Corporation 1988
A property comprised a large building let on fully repairing leases of 22 units. The many rain outlets were allowed to become blocked, and water accumulated above one unit before that part of the roof collapsed. The landlord appealed a finding that . .
Cited – Westminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .
Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194604

Blackshaw v Lord: CA 1984

Claim to privilege must be precisely focused

The Daily Telegraph carried an article headed ‘Incompetence at ministry cost pounds 52 million’ recording that a number of senior civil servants had been reprimanded after investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. The plaintiff had been in charge at the material time. It also stated that the plaintiff had resigned from the civil service. The article followed a press conference at which some of the evidence had been disclosed, and at which it was revealed that an unnamed senior department official in Scotland had been reprimanded. The name of the official concerned was said to have been subsequently divulged to the journalist (Mr Lord) by one of the department’s press officers (Mr Smith) on request. The defendant made a claim to a generic protection for a widely stated category of information, namely: ‘fair information on a matter of public interest’.
Held: A claim to privilege must be precisely focused. A publication must be in the public interest. Whether a publication is in the public interest or, in the conventional phraseology, whether there is a duty to publish to the intended recipients, the readers of the newspaper, depends upon the circumstances, including the nature of the matter published and its source or status. ‘There must be a duty to publish to the public at large and an interest in the public at large to receive the publication, and a section of the public is not enough.’
Stephenson LJ: ‘Where damaging facts have been ascertained to be true or being made the subject of report, there may be a duty to report them . . . provided the public interest is wide enough . . . But where damaging allegations or charges have been made and are still under investigation . . . or have been authoritatively refuted . . . there can be no duty to report them to the public.’

Judges:

Dunn LJ, Stephenson LJ, Fox LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 QB 42, [1983] 2 All ER 311, [1983] 3 WLR 283

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gilpin v Fowler 9-Feb-1854
The word `privilege’ means the existence of a set of circumstances in which the presumption of malice was negatived. `Instead of the expression `privileged communication’ it would be more correct to say that the communication was made on an occasion . .
Cited – Perera v Peiris PC 1949
Qualified privilege claim upheld
(Ceylon) The ‘Ceylon Daily News’ had published extracts from a report of the Bribery Commission which was critical of Dr. Perera’s lack of frankness in his evidence. The Judicial Committee upheld a claim to qualified privilege. In the light of the . .
Cited – Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd 1960
The Times newspaper published a report of the criminal trial in Switzerland of a British subject. When sued in defamation they sought to rely upon the defence of fair reporting of judicial proceedings.
Held: A blanket protection for reporting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Applied – Riches v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Feb-1985
The defendant published serious defamatory allegations against several plaintiff police officers. The defendant newspaper appealed against an award of andpound;250,000 exemplary damages for their defamation of the respondent police officers.
Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Cited – Seaga v Harper PC 30-Jan-2008
Public meeting gave no qualified privilege
(Jamaica) The appellant politician pleaded that his words about a senior policemen when spoken at a public meeting were protected from an action in slander by qualified privilege.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194513

Weldon v The Times Book Co Ltd: 1911

The court considered the case of a bookseller who sells a book defamatory of the Plaintiff, in this case the books on Gounod.

Citations:

(1911) 28 TLR 143

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited QBD 26-Mar-1999
An Internet Service Provider who was re-distributing Usenet postings it had received, to its users in general, remained a publisher at common law, even though he was not such within the definitions of the Act, and it was therefore liable in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194309

Mallard v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1990

Citations:

[1990] 91 Crim App R 108

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chambers Admn 25-Jul-2003
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of charges of driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had admited driving, but said she had consumed alcohol in the twenty minutes between driving and the police coming to her home. Expert evidence had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187464

The Padre Island: 1984

The 1930 Act creates a statutory assignment of any rights of action in a case where the assured has become bankrupt or been wound up, the party to whom the benefit of a right of action under the liability insurance contract has been transferred may only operate that right in accordance with an arbitration agreement in the contract of insurance even if that agreement is expressed to refer only to the parties to the contract of insurance and not in terms wide enough to cover a statutory assignee.

Citations:

[1984] 2 Lloyds Rep 408

Statutes:

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves and Company Ltd and others ComC 7-Nov-2003
One party sought a declaration that arbitrators should have no jurisdiction to determine claims for commission said to be due to the Respondent chartering brokers.
Held: Because he has in effect become a statutory assignee of the promisee’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Insolvency, Arbitration

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187712

Dale v Hall: 1750

Damage done by rats is not normally an act of God.

Citations:

(1750) 1 Wils 281

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188036

Cormack v Cope: 5 Aug 1974

(High Court of Australia) There was an alleged constitutional irregularity in the law-making process.
Held: Ordinarily the court’s interference to ensure due observance of the constitution in connection with the making of laws is effected by a post-enactment declaration that what purports to be an Act is void. This is a sufficient means of ensuring that the processes of law-making which the constitution requires are properly followed. But in point of jurisdiction the court is not limited to that method of ensuring the observance of the constitutional processes of law-making. In an appropriate case the court is able, and indeed in a proper case bound, to interfere. Exceptionally, there might be intervention in the parliamentary process. Menzies J. and Stephen J. Menzies J. stated that it was no part of the authority of the court to restrain Parliament from making unconstitutional laws, but left open the case where the adoption of a particular law-making procedure would defeat the constitutional power of the court to deal effectively with legislation when enacted. Stephen J based the limitation of court intervention on jurisdictional and not discretionary grounds, but he envisaged there may be exceptions.

Judges:

Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ

Citations:

(1974) 131 CL R 432

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – The Bahamas District of the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas and Others v The Hon Vernon J Symonette M P Speaker of the House of Assembly and 7 Others (No 70 of 1998) and Ormond Hilton Poitier and 14 Others v The Methodist Church PC 26-Jul-2000
PC (The Bahamas) The Methodist community had split, eventually leading to a new Act. Others now challenged the constitionality of the Act, and that lands had been transferred in breach of the constitution.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187514

Doe Ex Dim Cheny v Batten: 13 Feb 1775

The tenant gave notice to quit but failed to leave the premises by the due date (Michaelmas). The landlord sued for ejectment, but then accepted a quarter’s rent (due at Christmas). Did this create a new tenancy?
Held: The issue depended on the intention of the parties. Referring to the landlord accepting a single rent: ‘The taking half, when he is entitled to an action for the whole, is an act of lenity; but it does not import a consent that the tenant shall continue in possession, or a waiver by the landlord of his remedy by ejectment.’ The acceptance of a single rent was only a waiver of the landlord’s right to double rent under the 1730 Act, and not of the right to possession.
Aston J said: ‘The only act which appears is, the acceptance of a single quarter’s rent accrued since. I think that is only a waiver of his right to double rent under [the Act of 1730], and does not necessarily imply a consent that the tenancy should continue . . For here, the acceptance of single rent, is only a waiver of his right to double.’
Lord Mansfield said: ‘The question therefore is, quo animo the rent was received, and what the real intention of both parties was? If the truth of the case is, that both parties intended the tenancy should continue, there is an end of the plaintiff’s title: if not, the landlord is not barred of his remedy by ejectment.’

Judges:

Aston J, Lord Mansfield, Ashhurst J

Citations:

[1775] 1 Cowp 243, [1775] EngR 19, (1775) 98 ER 1066

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Distress for Rent Act 1737 (II Geo 2, c 19) 18,, Landlord and Tenant Act 1730

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Cited – Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook CA 2-Feb-2004
Tenant’s First Notice to terminate, stood
The landlord served a notice to terminate the business lease. The tenant first served a notice to say that it would not seek a new lease, but then, and still within the time limit, it served a second counter-notice seeking a new tenancy. The . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188149

Purdy v Cambran: 17 Dec 1999

It is necessary to concentrate on the intrinsic justice of a particular case in the light of the overriding objective. ‘For the reasons which I have just given, I think that the question is whether the claim has no real prospect of succeeding at trial and that it has to be answered having regard to the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly. But the point which is of crucial importance lies in the answer to the further question that then needs to be asked, which is – what is to be the scope of that inquiry? . . The method by which issues of fact are tried in our courts is well settled. After the normal processes of discovery and interrogatories have been completed, the parties are allowed to lead their evidence so that the trial judge can determine where the truth lies in the light of that evidence. To that rule there are some well-recognised exceptions. For example, it may be clear as a matter of law at the outset that even if a party were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to prove he will not be entitled to the remedy that he seeks. In that event a trial of the facts would be a waste of time and money, and it is proper that the action should be taken out of court as soon as possible. In other cases it may be possible to say with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is fanciful because it is entirely without substance. It may be clear beyond question that the statement of facts is contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. The simpler the case the easier it is likely to be take that view and resort to what is properly called summary judgment. But more complex cases are unlikely to be capable of being resolved in that way without conducting a mini-trial on the documents without discovery and without oral evidence. As Lord Woolf said in Swain v Hillman, at p 95, that is not the object of the rule. It is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 17 December 1999, [2000] CP Rep 67

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Asiansky Television Plc and Another v Bayer-Rosin CA 11-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
Cited – Asiansky Television Plc and Another v Bayer-Rosin CA 19-Nov-2001
The court considered the circumstancs allowing a striking out.
Held: Consideration should be given to the question whether striking out the claim or defence would be disproportionate and, except perhaps where striking it out would be plainly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187461

Attorney-General’s Reference No 43 of 1999 (Glyn GM): CACD 2000

In this case involving serious sexual offences by a father upon his daughter, it was stated that, upon conviction on a plea of not guilty, the appropriate sentence would have been one of between 15 and 18 months’ imprisonment.

Citations:

[2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 398

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Ali CACD 14-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed conviction and sentence for sexual assaults on young girls. He complained that the prosecution had been allowed to bring in evidence of previous consistent statements.
Held: The evidence of the mother had been admitted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187966

Dendy v Nicholls: 1858

For a landlord to demand and sue for rent, when he knew of facts entitling him to forfeit the lease, amounted to waiver of forfeiture and prevented him from bringing a later action for ejectment. Referring to Jones v Carter: (Crowder J) ‘Here, there has been not merely a demand for rent, but an action brought to enforce it. That seems to me to be an unqualified and conclusive act on the part of the landlord, shewing an intention on his part to treat the lessees as still continuing his tenant … I think the authorities abundantly show that, by such a demand as has been made here, the plaintiff has elected conclusively to treat the defendant as his tenant, and cannot afterwards turn round and make him a trespasser.’

Judges:

Crowder J, Willes J, Byles J

Citations:

[1858] 4 CB (NS) 376

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jones v Carter 1846
The landlord served a declaration in ejectment from the premises.
Held: The service operated as a forfeiture, and a final election to determine the lease, and it was not possible for the landlord later to demand rent. ”After such an act, by . .

Cited by:

Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188154

Baird v Williamson: 1863

The parties worked mines on adjacent land. Water flooded the plaintiff’s mine and he sought damages from the defendant.
Held: He was liable. The water from the defendant’s mine had been raised to a higher level by pumping (‘non-naturally’) and then flowed into the other mine.

Citations:

[1863] 15 CB(NS) 317

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188027

Lyon v Reed: 1844

The court examined the principle of the surrender of a lease by operation of law: ‘. . . all the old cases will be found to depend on the principle to which we have adverted, namely, an act done by or to the owner of a particular estate, the validity of which he is estopped from disputing, and which could not have been done if the particular estate continued to exist. The law there says, that the act itself amounts to a surrender. In such case it will be observed there can be no question of intention. The surrender is not the result of intention. It takes place independently, and even in spite of intention. Thus, in the cases which we have adverted to of a lessee taking a second lease from the lessor, or a tenant for life accepting a feoffment from the party in remainder, or a lessee accepting a rent-charge from his lessor, it would not at all alter the case to show that there was no intention to surrender the particular estate, or even that there was an express intention to keep it unsurrendered. In all these cases the surrender would be the act of the law, and would prevail in spite of the intention of the parties.’
Baron Parke: ‘In order to ascertain how far … cases can be relied on as authorities, we must consider what is meant by a surrender by operation of law. This term is applied to cases where the owner of a particular estate has been a party to some act, the validity of which he is by law afterwards estopped from disputing, and which would not be valid if his particular estate had continued to exist. There the law treats the doing of such act as amounting to a surrender. Thus, if a lessee for years accept a new lease for his lessor, he is estopped from saying that his lessor had not power to make the new lease; and, as the lessor could not do this until the prior lease had been surrendered, the law says that the acceptance of such new lease is of itself a surrender…’ and ‘If we apply these principles to the case now before us, it will be seen that they do not at all warrant the conclusion, that there was a surrender of the lease of the 7th of April, 1812, by act and operation of law. Even adopting, as we do, the argument of the plaintiff, that the delivery up by Ord and Planta of the lease in question affords cogent evidence of their having consented to the making of the new lease, still there is no estoppel in such a case. It is an act which, like any other ordinary act in pais, is capable of being explained, and its effect must therefore depend, not on any legal consequence necessarily attaching on and arising out of the act itself, but on the intention of the parties.’ and ‘The acts in pais which bind parties by way of estoppel are but few, and are pointed out by Lord Coke, Co Litt, 352a. They are all acts which anciently really were, and in contemplation of law have always continued to be, acts of notoriety, not less formal and solemn than the execution of a deed, such as livery, entry, acceptance of an estate, and the like. Whether a party had or had not concurred in an act of this sort, was deemed a matter which there could be no difficulty in ascertaining, and then the legal consequences followed. But in what uncertainty and peril will titles be placed, if they are liable to be affected by such accidents as those alluded to by Mr Justice Bayley.’

Judges:

Baron Parke

Citations:

(1844) 13 MandW 285, [1843-60] All ER Rep 178

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Allen and Another v Rochdale Borough Council CA 23-Mar-1999
Land was sold. It had been used as playing fields. The freehold and leasehold interests in the land were held by the respondent, and the claimants asserted it was held as bare trustees for them as charitable trustees for the school foundation. The . .
Cited – Ealing Family Housing Association Ltd v McKenzie CA 10-Oct-2003
The defendant and his wife separated when she left the flat they shared. She accepted a new tenancy of other premises. The landlord claimed possession of the flat, saying that the tenancy had ended.
Held: There was no express surrender within . .
Cited – Mattey Securities Limited v Ervin, Sutton, Mitchell CA 3-Apr-1998
After the insolvency of an assignee of a lease, the landlord talked with possible new tenants, and the original lessee now said that the landlord had impliedly accepted a surrender of the original lease, thus releasing him from continuing liability. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187386

Regina v Wickins: 1958

The court prescribed four requirements for a special reason: namely, it must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance; it must not in law amount to a defence; it must be directly connected with the commission of the offence; and the matter must be one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing punishment. The divisional court this court should be slow to interfere with a Justices’ decision in this area, where they have properly directed themselves as to the law and taken proper considerations into account.

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1958] 42 Cr App R 236

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Conroy Admn 23-Jun-2003
The DPP appealed a finding of special reasons for not disqualifying the defendant after finding him guilty of driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped driving at excess speed, he had driven over a mile and had a further two hundred yards to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187501