Lawrence Pat Sankar v State of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 16 Dec 1994

(Trinidad and Tobago) An advocate’s failure to advise his client on the need for him to give evidence, and the consequences of his not doing so may be enough to justify an appeal against conviction.

Citations:

Independent 12-Jan-1995, Times 28-Dec-1994, [1994] UK PC 1, [1995] 1 WLR 194, No 22 of 1993, [1994] UKPC 49

Links:

PC, Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

distinguishedCodrington v the Queen (Belize) PC 27-Mar-1996
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He had two grounds of appeal, that the judge had failed to get right the burden of proof, and that his counsel had not allowed him to give evidence when he had wanted to. The case was remitted. Although . .
CitedBoodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
CitedAnderson v HM Advocate HCJ 1996
The court considered the effect on a conviction of a failure by defence counsel. After considering the authorities: ‘It can only be said to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice if it has deprived the accused of his right to a fair trial. That . .
CitedBally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89005

Cox v Army Council: PC 1963

The provisions of the English Army Act, are to be applied ‘in diverse circumstances wherever the armed forces of the Crown happen to be, in developed or undeveloped countries, as conquerors or guests, and their purpose is . . Disciplinary.’ Criminal law applies only in respect of acts committed or omissions made within England. Viscount Simons said: ‘apart from those exceptional cases in which specific provision is made in regard to acts committed abroad, the whole body of the criminal law of England deals only with acts committed in England.’ and ‘with rare exceptions the whole body of our criminal law is ‘domestic’ in the sense that it is made for the order and good government of this country and is applicable only to acts done on English soil.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1963] AC 48, (1962) 46 Cr App R 258

Cited by:

CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Armed Forces, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.373404

Ramstead v The Queen: PC 2 Dec 1998

New Zealand. Where a judge had received a note from the jury as to intended riders to their verdict, he was obliged to notify counsel and, having seen the foreman of the jury in chambers in counsel’s absence, the verdicts had constituted a material irregularity

Judges:

Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1998, [1998] UKPC 47, [1999] 2 WLR 698, [1999] 2 AC 92

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

EndorsedRegina v Gorman CACD 1987
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘ . . certain propositions can now be set out as to what should be done by a judge who receives a communication from a jury which has retired to considered its verdict.
First of all, if the communication raises something . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85663

Thomas Reckley v Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others (Bahamas) (No 2): PC 6 Feb 1996

(The Bahamas) The actual exercise of the prerogative of mercy by a state falls outside the scope of the law. No further stay of execution granted.

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-1996, [1996] UKPC 1, [1996] 1 All ER 562

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85921

Mitchell v The Queen: PC 24 Jan 1998

(Bahamas) The judge’s decision on a voire dire to determine the admissibility of a confession should not be revealed to the jury since it might cause unfair prejudice to the defendant by conveying the impression that the judge had reached a concluded view on the credibility of the relevant witnesses and of the defendant. Lord Steyn said: ‘The vice is that the knowledge by the jury that the judge has believed the police and disbelieved the defendant creates the potentiality of prejudice. A jury of laymen, or some of them, might be forgiven for saying: ‘Well the judge did not believe the defendant, why should we believe him?’ At the very least it creates the risk that the jury, or some of them, may be diverted from grappling properly and independently with a defendant’s allegations of oppression so far as it is relevant to their decision. And such an avoidable risk of prejudice cannot be tolerated in regard to a procedure designed to protect a defendant.’ and as to whether this defect could be cured by the judge’s directions: ‘This was a serious irregularity, notably because it was calculated to convey to the jury that the judge had arrived at a concluded view that he ought to accept the evidence of the police witnesses and Franklyn Williams and reject the evidence of the defendant. That was the basis on which the jury then heard the evidence about the confessions over a number of days. The judge did not subsequently tell the jury to ignore his decision as to voluntariness of the confessions. For these reasons their Lordships cannot accept the Crown’s preliminary submission that the irregularity was ex post facto cured.’

Judges:

Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-1998, [1998] UKPC 1, [1998] AC 695

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedMichael Adams and Frederick Lawrence v Regina PC 18-Mar-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence.
Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no . .
CitedTaylor v The Queen PC 13-Mar-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that admissions against each other by the co-defendants had been entered in evidence despite his allegations of police mistreatment. The statement was the only . .
CitedMitcham v The Queen PC 16-Mar-2009
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The applicant appealed against his sentence of death following his conviction for murder. He had been granted a stay of execution pending the appeal to the board and had since been given leave to appeal against . .
AppliedThompson v The Queen PC 16-Feb-1998
(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) When a defendant is of good character, ie has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit . .
CitedKrishna v The State PC 6-Jul-2011
krishna_statePC11
(Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant appealed against his conviction for murder, complaining as to the way a former co-accused had been allowed to give evidence and the admission of a confession, saying that he had been beaten by police officers.
CitedWilliams v The Queen PC 25-Apr-2006
PC Jamaica – the appellant had been twelve when convicted on his own confession of murder. He said that the statement after oppression. The statement had been challenged but admitted without following the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83776

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin: PC 12 Feb 1996

(New Zealand) Seventeen years earlier the plaintiff had asked a builder to construct a house for him, but it now appeared that the foundations had been inadequate. The building company no longer being in existence, he sought damages from the local authority which had supervised the construction.
Held: A Local Authority was liable for economic losses for a negligent inspection of a house during construction. Murphy had not been followed in New Zealand and the Privy Council accepted that this was justified. The Pirelli date of physical damage had also been discarded in favour of the date of discoverability. The decision in Pirelli was unfortunate: Once it is appreciated that the loss in respect of which the plaintiff in the present case is suing is loss to his pocket, and not for physical damage to the house or foundations, then most, if not all the difficulties surrounding the limitation question fall away. The plaintiff’s loss occurs when the market value of the house is depreciated by reason of the defective foundations, and not before. If he resells the house at full value before the defect is discovered he suffers no loss. Thus in the common case the occurrence of the loss and the discovery of the loss will coincide . . But the plaintiff cannot postpone the start of the limitation period by shutting his eyes to the obvious . . . In other words the cause of action accrues when the cracks become so bad and all the defects so obvious, that any reasonable home-owner would call in an expert. Since the defects would then be obvious to a potential buyer or his expert, that marks the moment when the market value of the building is depreciated and therefore the moment when economic loss occurs. Their Lordships do not think it is possible to define the moment more accurately. The measure of the loss will then be the cost of repairs if it is reasonable to repair, or the depreciation in the market value if it is not . . . This approach avoids almost all the practical and theoretical difficulties to which the academic commentators have drawn attention and which led to the rejection of Pirelli by the Supreme Court of Canada . . . The approach is consistent with the underlying principle that a cause of action accrues when, but not before, all the elements necessary to support the plaintiff’s claim are in existence. For in the case of a latent defect in a building the element of loss or damage which is necessary to support a claim for economic loss in tort does not exist so long as the market value of the house is unaffected. Whether or not it is right to describe an undiscoverable crack as damage, it clearly cannot affect the value of the building on the market. The existence of such a crack is thus irrelevant to the cause of action . . . Whether Pirelli should still be regarded as good law in England is not for their Lordships to say. What is clear is that it is not good law in New Zealand.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Sir Michael Hardie Boys

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1996, 50 Con LR 105, [1996] AC 624, [1996] UKPC 56, 78 BLR 78, [1996] 1 NZLR 513, [1996] 1 All ER 756

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedMurphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
CitedPirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber and Partners HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff asked the defendant consulting engineer to design an extension to their factory in 1969. Not later than in April 1970, cracks developed in the chimney. In 1977 the cause of the damage was discovered. It arose from design faults in the . .

Cited by:

CitedAbbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd CA 2-Mar-2005
The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was . .
CitedW v W; J v Raewyn Bell PC 19-Jan-1999
PC (New Zealand) The claimants sught to recover exemplary damages from defendants convicted of criminal offences against them.
Held: There were differences in the system between New Zealand and the English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Construction, Local Government, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82411

Haydon and Others v Lo and Lo (A Firm) and Another: PC 23 Jan 1997

(Hong Kong) A claim was made under a professional indemnity policy. The solicitors’ clerk had through a series of frauds embezzled some HK$50m. The insurers said that this was one claim, and that their liability was limited to the maximum under the policy. The question was whether this was ‘one claim’ or a series of claims.
Held: The phrase referred to the claim as directed against the firm by the client who had lost out, and not to the several acts of appropriation by the clerk. ‘it is the underlying facts which are determinative, and . . the formulation of the claim by the third party cannot be decisive of an insurer’s liability, whether for the purpose of calculating the deductible, or for any other purpose. ‘
(Hong Kong)

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1997, [1997] UKPC 2, [1997] 1 WLR 198

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedAustralia and New Zealand Bank Limited v Colonial and Eagle Wharves Limited 1960
A claim was made under an all risks insurance policy on goods taken out by a firm of wharfingers. There was an excess of andpound;100 each and every claim. During the currency of the policy the wharfingers misdelivered a total of 246 bales on 30 . .
CitedWest Wake Price and Co v Ching 1957
A clerk employed by a firm of accountants defrauded two of the firm’s clients of andpound;20,000 over a period of about three years.
Held: One can not ‘pay’ a cause of action.
Devlin J said: ‘I think that the primary meaning of the word . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81285

Harley v McDonald; Glasgow Harley (A Firm) v McDonald: PC 10 Apr 2001

(New Zealand) A solicitor’s duty to the court was not breached merely because he had, on his client’s instructions, pursued a case which was hopeless. It was also inapposite to penalize him for work undertaken before the court had warned him of the view that the case was hopeless. The solicitor, as an officer of the court, has duties to achieve a minimum level of competence and not to abuse the court’s process. In its nature, the procedure of penalising a solicitor in costs, will be summary. The court should allow the solicitor proper opportunity to defend himself, and should restrain itself from investigating matters which were within judicial knowledge.

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001, [2001] UKPC 20, Nos 9 of 2000 and 50 of 2000, [2001] 2 WLR 1749, [2001] 2 AC 678, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 584

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Citing:

CitedMyers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81242

Michael Gayle v the Queen (Jamaica): PC 2 Jul 1996

The judicial Committee of the Privy-Council is not to be used as second court of appeal on matters of fact.

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1996, Appeal No 40 of 1995, Appeal No 40 of 1995, [1996] UKPC 3, [1996] UKPC 18, [2012] ECHR 1636, [2012] ECHR 1635, [2012] ECHR 1637, [1990] ECHR 34, [2009] ECHR 619, [1980] ECHR 9, [1997] ECHR 205, [2014] ECHR 293, [1978] ECHR 8, [2010] ECHR 2263, [1994] ECHR 59, [2011] ECHR 2422, [1985] ECHR 14, [2016] ECHR 699, [2016] ECHR 704, [2016] ECHR 986, [2017] ECHR 32

Links:

PC, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80774

Goss and others v Laurence George Chilcott As Liquidator of Central Acceptance Limited (In Liquidation): PC 23 May 1996

(New Zealand) Mr and Mrs Goss, had been granted a loan by the claimant finance company under a mortgage instrument that had been avoided by the claimant because it had been fraudulently altered by Mr Haddon, an employee of the claimant, without the claimant’s authority. Mr Haddon was the brother of Mrs Goss. The advance from the claimant having been made available to Mr and Mrs Goss, it was as agreed between them and Mr Haddon in fact received by Mr Haddon. Mr and Mrs Goss took no security from Mr Haddon. Mr Haddon was unable to repay the advance. Mr and Mrs Goss argued that their inability to recover the money from Mr Haddon constituted a defence of change of position to the claimant’s action for restitution of the money paid for a consideration that had totally failed.
Held: The loan remained repayable despite the unenforceability of the mortgage instrument under which it was secured. The defence failed because Mr and Mrs Goss knew that the money lent would have to be repaid to the claimant and, in paying it to Mr Haddon, they had taken the risk that the loss would fall on them.
Lord Goff said: ‘From the beginning, the Defendants were under an obligation to repay the advance once it had been paid to them or to their order; and this obligation was of course unaffected by the fact that they had allowed the money to be paid over to Mr Haddon. The effect of the alteration of the mortgage instrument was that their contractual obligation to repay the money was discharged; but they had nevertheless been enriched by the receipt of the money, and prima facie were liable in restitution to restore it. They had however allowed the money to be paid over to Mr Haddon in circumstances in which, as they well knew, the money would nevertheless have to be repaid to the company. They had, therefore, in allowing the money to be paid to Mr Haddon, deliberately taken the risk that he would be unable to repay the money, in which event they themselves would have to repay it without recourse to him. Since any action by them against Mr Haddon would now be fruitless they are seeking, by invoking the defence of change of position, to shift that loss onto the company. This, in their Lordships’ opinion, they cannot do. The fact that they cannot now obtain reimbursement from Mr Haddon does not, in the circumstances of the present case, render it inequitable for them to be required to make restitution to the company in respect of the enrichment which they have received at the company’s expense.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon

Citations:

Gazette 12-Jun-1996, Times 06-Jun-1996, [1996] UKPC 17, [1996] AC 788

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDavidson, Public Officer, &Amp;C v Cooper And Another 6-Jul-1844
. .
CitedFibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd HL 15-Jun-1942
A contract for the supply by the respondents of special machinery to be manufactured by them was treated as an ordinary contract for the sale of goods. It began valid, but suffered frustration by the outbreak of war.
Held: Lord Wright restated . .
CitedDavid Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia 7-Oct-1992
(High Court of Australia ) Restitution – Money paid under mistake – Mistake of law – Right to recover – Unjust enrichment – Defences – Change of position. . .

Cited by:

CitedKommune and Another v DEPFA Acs Bank ComC 4-Sep-2009
Local authorities in Denmark sought to recover sums paid to the defendant banks for swap trading, saying that the payments had been outwith their powers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Commonwealth, Equity

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80939

Dunkley and Robinson v The Queen: PC 1 Nov 1994

(Jamaica) The appellant’s counsel had walked out of a murder trial after a dispute with the judge, leaving the appellant unrepresented for the remainder of the proceedings.
Held: A defendant in a capital murder case is to be allowed to find new counsel after his counsel quit. A case which had continued without this being allowed was unfair: ‘. . . where a defendant faces a capital charge and is left unrepresented through no fault of his own the interest of justice require that in all but the most exceptional cases there be a reasonable adjournment to enable him to try and secure alternative representation.’

Citations:

Independent 01-Nov-1994, Gazette 09-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 AC 419

Citing:

AppliedRobinson v The Queen PC 1985
Where a defendant found himself unrepresented on the day of trial, an adjournment should be granted. The constitutional right to representation was not a guarantee of representation but a right for the defendant to arrange representation at his own . .

Cited by:

CitedGianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
CitedGianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
CitedGrant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
CitedDelroy Ricketts v The Queen PC 15-Dec-1997
(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80170

Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd: PC 20 Feb 1995

Compensation is payable for losses properly anticipating resumption of possession of the land. The principle of equivalence gives rise to the statutory right to interest under section 11(1). The council explained the conceptual foundation of the discounted cash flow basis of calculation: ‘In this calculation the discount rate, or capitalisation rate, comprises the rate at which an amount of money payable at a future date should be reduced to arrive at its present value. Its present value is the price which a person would pay now for the right or prospect of receiving the amount of money in question at the future date. Three ingredients can be identified in the discount rate. One is the rate of return the potential purchaser would expect on his money, assuming that the payment to him at the future date is free of risk. A second ingredient is the allowance the potential purchaser would make because of the likely impact of inflation. He is buying today, in today’s currency, the right to be paid at a future date an amount which, when paid, will be paid in tomorrow’s depreciated currency. The third ingredient is the risk factor. The greater the risk that the purchaser will not receive in due course the future payments he is buying, the higher the rate of return he will require.’

Judges:

Lord Nicholls, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-1995, [1995] 2 AC 111

Links:

PC

Statutes:

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11(1)

Cited by:

CitedHalstead v Council of City of Manchester CA 23-Oct-1997
Land had been compulsorily purchased, and the compensation agreed, but after long delays in payment, not as to the calculation of interest.
Held: Interest would be payable from the date of entry. The limitation period arose only once the . .
CitedMohammed Aslam v South Bedfordshire District Council CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had . .
CitedFaraday v Carmarthenshire County Council CA 10-May-2004
The claimant appealed against an award of compensation on the compulsory acquisition of his land by the defendant.
Held: The award was incorrect. The authority had wrongly deducted a sum in respect of ‘freed up time’ – which would have allowed . .
CitedRyde International Plc v London Regional Transport CA 5-Mar-2004
The landowner had developed land which was then made the subject of compulsory purchase. The court was asked how the compensation was to be calculated. The landowner expected to sell the development as a whole. The respondent argued that the profit . .
CitedMoto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 26-Jul-2007
The company sought damages to its business on a motorway service station when works closed an access road.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. A claim for compensation under section 10 had not been established, at least in respect . .
CitedStar Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Commonwealth, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79977

Rupert Crosdale v The Queen: PC 6 Apr 1995

(Jamaica) A court’s insistence that a submission of no case to answer must be made in the presence of jury was unfair. When considering submissions of no case to answer, the judge should invite the jury to retire and, if he decided to reject the plea, he should say nothing to the jury about it. Where in any case the jury had remained in court during the submissions, the question for the appeal court would be whether in the circumstances of the case there was any significant risk of prejudice having resulted from the irregularity.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 864, [1995] UKPC 1, Appeal No 13 of 1994

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMichael Adams and Frederick Lawrence v Regina PC 18-Mar-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence.
Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79678

Cheah Theam Swee v Equitcorp Finance Group Ltd and Another: PC 5 Nov 1991

(New Zealand) A had given two charges over his shares to different lenders. The charges came to be both owned by the same person, who obtained judgment under the first charge, but then exercised its power of sale under the second, waiving its priority under the first. The chargor complained that the chargee should have exercised his power under the first charge which would have discharged the judgment.
Held: Owners of different mortgagees of a property can agree to alter the priority of their respective charges irrespective of the wishes of the chargor, and without needing his consent. The mortgagor had no control over which remedy was taken by the chargees.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jan-1992, [1991] 4 All ER 989, [1991] UKPC 39

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

DistinguishedPalmer v Hendrie 1859
. .
See AlsoCheah Theam Swee v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd. And, Equiticorp Nominees Ltd PC 12-Jul-1989
New Zealand . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Banking, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78999

Chan Wai-Keung v The Queen: PC 10 Jan 1994

(Hong Kong) Evidence from a witness who was awaiting sentence in an unrelated matter was admissible since the jury had been warned of the dangers of such evidence. Lord Mustill said: ‘Once the courts have taken the large step, as they undoubtedly have, of recognising that circumstances may justify the calling of a witness who stands to gain by giving false evidence, it becomes impossible to say that what happened in the present case was necessarily contrary to the proper conduct of the murder trial. What was required was that the potential fallibility of [the witness] should be put squarely before the jury, and this is what was done.’
Evidence from a convict looking for a reduced sentence was admissible with an appropriate warning.

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Times 21-Dec-1994, Independent 10-Jan-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 194, [1994] UKPC 47

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedGibson, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant renewed has application for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The principle evidence against him was that of an accomplice. She had received letters to say that no further action would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78971

Brooks v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: PC 2 Mar 1994

(Jamaica) The DPP successfully applied for a voluntary bill after the resident magistrate had discharged the defendant on the ground that having heard the evidence, there was no case to answer. The challenge to the DPP’s decision to seek a voluntary bill was advanced not on the ground of double jeopardy, but rather of abuse of process.
Held: The DPP or the judge should treat the decision of the resident magistrate with the greatest respect and regard their jurisdiction as one to be exercised with great circumspection. There have to be exceptional circumstances to warrant prosecuting a defendant after it has been found in committal proceedings that there is no case to answer. Nevertheless, a judge has the power to issue a voluntary bill of indictment ex parte.

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Gazette 02-Mar-1994, [1994] 1 AC 568, [1994] UKPC 1

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
CitedGadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78679

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Phillip: PC 9 Nov 1994

A pardon which had been give to insurrectionists was invalid, since it purported to excuse future conduct also, but there had been no duress shown. There is no general power to excuse a crime before it is committed. Lord Woolf: ‘A pardon must in the ordinary way only relate to offences which have already been committed ….However while a pardon can expunge past offences, a power to pardon cannot be used to dispense with criminal responsibility for an offence which has not yet been committed . This is a principle of general application which is of the greatest importance. The state cannot be allowed to use a power to pardon to enable the law to be set aside by permitting it to be contravened with impunity.’ The prosecution of a person who in exchange for his co-operation has received an undertaking, promise or representation that he would not be charged is capable of amounting to an abuse of process.
Lord Bridge: ‘However while a pardon can expunge past offences, a power to pardon cannot be used to dispense with criminal responsibility for an offence which has not yet been committed. This is a principle of general application which is of the greatest importance. The state cannot be allowed to use a power to pardon to enable the law to be set aside by permitting it to be contravened with impunity.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Independent 19-Oct-1994, Times 11-Oct-1994, Gazette 09-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 AC 396

Citing:

See AlsoLennox Phillip and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions of Trinidad and Tobago and Another; Same vCommissioners of Prisons PC 19-Feb-1992
(Trinidad and Tobago) There had been an insurrection, and many people were taken prisoner by the insurrectionists. To secure their release, the President issued an amnesty to all the insurgents, including the applicant. After surrendering, the . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners Admn 18-Oct-2001
The function of the Director’s office is statutory, and his powers are those laid down. He is not able to excuse possible criminal conduct in advance, and nor could he establish a policy of not applying certain statutory provisions. The Suicide Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77948

Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Citibank Savings Ltd: 1995

(New South Wales) Mr and Mrs P owned and controlled W Ltd. W Ltd borrowed monies from Citibank which took security for repayment in the form of a charge over the home of Mr and Mrs P and also a charge over the home of the parents of Mr P. On the face of the documents, Mr and Mrs P and the parents of Mr P were co-sureties for the debt of W Ltd. W Ltd defaulted and Mr and Mrs P were made bankrupt. Their trustee in bankruptcy sold their home and repaid the debt to Citibank. The trustee then claimed an equal contribution from Mr P’s parents on the basis that they were co-sureties with Mr and Mrs P and that the default position was that the co-sureties were equally liable to contribute to the payment of the debt.
Held: The claim by the trustee in bankruptcy was dismissed. Mr P’s parents had entered into the charge at the request of Mr and Mrs P and therefore Mr and Mrs P were liable to indemnify Mr P’s parents and, accordingly, were not entitled to claim a contribution from them. A right of contribution may not arise where two persons borrow money but that money is applied for the purposes of only one of them, or if one guarantor enjoys the whole benefit of the guarantee in another capacity to the exclusion of his co-surety.
In considering whether common intention is essential to rebut contribution, Bryson J said: ‘The position taken by the plaintiff’s counsel before me was to the effect that the prima facie right of contribution can only be rebutted if a common intention to the contrary is clearly proved by evidence of some agreement or arrangement. No doubt it is very usual that rebuttal takes that form, but in my opinion it is not necessary that there should be a common intention or a bilateral arrangement, and it is not necessary that there should be any expression of an intention or arrangement, as circumstances can occur in which an intended outcome is so clear and obvious that it must be imputed to the parties that they intended it. Quite apart from any intention held by the parties or imputed to them, circumstances can occur in which, without there being any expression of intention or actual advertence to the subject of contribution, it is clear that equity does not require that an obligation to make contribution should be imposed on a party. The court should not lose sight of the origin of the right to contribution in the equitable principle that equity is equality, or forget that facts may exist in which it is not appropriate to treat parties under a common liability as in an equal position, or in which some other equitable principle ought to be given effect.’

Judges:

Bryson J

Citations:

[1999] BPIR 754, (1995) 38 NSWLR 116

Cited by:

CitedDay v Shaw and Another ChD 17-Jan-2014
Mr and Mrs Shaw had granted a second charge over their jointly-owned matrimonial home to secure the personal guarantee given by their daughter and by Mr Shaw in respect of a bank loan to a company (Avon). Their daughter and Mr Shaw were the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Equity

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567255

John De Freitas v The Queen: 1960

(West Indian Federal Supreme Court) If the prosecution have shown that the defendant’s actions were not done in self defence, then that issue is eliminated from the case.

Citations:

[1960] 2 WIR 523

Cited by:

Appeal fromJohn De Freitas v The Queen PC 10-Jul-1961
(West Indies) . .
PreferredPalmer v The Queen PC 23-Nov-1970
It is a defence in criminal law to a charge of assault if the defendant had an honest belief that he was going to be attacked and reacted with proportionate force: ‘If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.539753

Stopforth v Goyer: 1978

(High Court of Ontario) A claim was made for defamation in remarks made by the defendant about the plaintiff to media representative who were present in parliament, just after he left the Ottawa chamber at the conclusion of the question period. The plaintiff had been a senior member of a team having conduct of the delivery of weapons systems to the government. The defendant had been the relevant minister. It was accepted that the defendant was taken to assume that his acceptedly defamatory words would be repulished by the media. The defendant claimed qualified privilege.
Held: The defence was not made out. There was no duty falling on him at the time to utter the words he did, and nor was there a reciprocal duty in the press to receive the statement.

Judges:

Lief J

Citations:

(1978) 87 DLR (3d) 373, (1978) 4 CCLT 265

Cited by:

CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .
CitedMakudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional, Defamation, Media

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.427747

Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union: 1979

(Federal Court of Australia) Deane J interpreted a statute using the word ‘substantial’ saying that it ‘is not only susceptible of ambiguity: it is a word calculated to conceal a lack of precision.’

Judges:

Deane J

Citations:

(1979) 42 FLR 331

Cited by:

CitedAgbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje SC 10-Mar-2010
The parties had divorced in Nigeria, but the former wife now sought relief in the UK under section 10 of the 194 Act. The wife said that she lived here, but the order made in Nigeria was severely detrimental requiring her either to live here in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.406669

Schaefer v Schuman: PC 1972

(New South Wales – Australia) A promise to leave the property had been performed, and the issue was as to the relevance, if any, and the effect of an earier promise when the value of the devise was sought to be reduced by an order by way of financial provision under the New South Wales Family Provision on Inheritance legislation. The rights of the devisee were properly founded in contract. Held (majority, Lord Simon of Glaisdale dissenting on this as on the major point in the case). The case was indeed properly founded in contract, and, that being so, it was immune from the effect of an order under the family provision legislation.

Judges:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1972] AC 572

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedThorner v Major and others CA 2-Jul-2008
The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Wills and Probate, Contract, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.324695

Dirk Gysbert Van Breda v Johan Conrad Silberbauer: 11 Dec 1869

Action by the Owner of a Mill against the Owner of lands situate above the Mill in which, or over which, part of the water that supplied the Mill arose and flowed, for diversion and subtraction of such water. The Plaintiff claimed under grants and certain Regulations and Ordinances made by the Governor and Council of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, as well as upon a right of servitude by prescription. Judgment was given, with damages, for the Plaintiff. On appeal such judgment affirmed, the Judicial Committee being of opinion that, whether the power to legislate reapecting the water-rights of the lands in which the water arose, or over which it flowcd, had or had not been sufficiently reserved in the original grants by the Governer and Council to the then Owners, yet that it was abundantly shown, that the Legislature of the Colony had exercised authority, by Regulations and Ordinances, over the water in question, by which the derivative rights of the Plaintiff in the Court below had been regulated znd decIared

Citations:

[1869] EngR 58, (1869) 6 Moo PC NS 319, (1869) 16 ER 746

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.280627

Mussumat Thukrain Sookraj Koowar v Government, Baboo Ajeet Sing, And Others: PC 3 Jul 1871

In Oude, before its annexation to the British rule, a Rajah was a TaIookdar of a large Talook. A younger branch of his family had a separate Mehal in the possession of A., wholly distinct from and independent of the Talook the Rajah possessed as representing the elder branch of the family. The Oude Government, for fiscal purposes, included A’s Mehal with the Rajah’s Talook so that the Rajah as the elder branch of the family represented A.’s Mehal at the Court at Lucknow, notwithstanding that A. remained in undisturbed possession as absolute Owner, paying through the Rajah for his Mehal a proportion of the jumma fixed on the Talook. This relation between the Rajah and A. subsisted up to the time of the annexation of Oude by the British Government. While the Government was making a settlement with the Landowners, and A. was about to apply for a distinct settlement of his Mehal, he, and after him his Widow was, induced by the Rajah not to do so, the Rajah in Letters fully recognizing As absolute right to the Mehal. After the suppression of the rebellion in Oude, and the Government had recognized the Talookdary tenure with its rights, a provisional settlement of the Talook including A.’s Mehal, was made with the Rajah ; but before a Sunnud was granted to him, Government confiscated half his estate for concealment of Arms. The Rajah suppressed the fact of the trust relation of the Mehal of A., and contrived that it should be included in the half part of the estate the Government had confiscated ; which Mehal the Government as a reward granted to Oude loyalists. A.’s Widow brought a suit against the Government and the Grantees for the restoration of the Mehal and a settlement, The Financial Commissioner held that as the Rajah was the registered Owner of the Mehal of A., included in his Talook, it had been properly forfeited. Such finding reversed on appeal, on the ground that A. was the acknowledged cestui que trust of the Rajah, and that A.’s Widow, as equitable Owner was not affected as between her and the Government by the act of confiscation of half the Rajah’s Talook.

Citations:

[1871] EngR 27, (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 112, (1871) 20 ER 728

Links:

Commonlii

Trusts, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.280208

Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation: 1933

The court was asked whether Australian estate duty could be levied on movables situated abroad.
Held: When testing the validity of a law passed by the government of a dominion, the question was ‘whether the law in question can be truly described as being for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion concerned.’ This law was extra territorial.

Judges:

Evatt J

Citations:

(1933) 49 CLR 220

Cited by:

CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.277171

Chin Keow v Government of Malaysia: PC 1967

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 813

Citing:

Dicta ApprovedBolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .

Cited by:

MentionedWhitehouse v Jordan HL 17-Dec-1980
The plaintiff sued for brain damage suffered at birth by use of forceps at the alleged professional negligence of his doctor. The Court of Appeal had reversed the judge’s finding in his favour.
Held: In this case most of the evidence at issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.269667

Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd: PC 1959

Lord Denning noted that the exclusion clause at issue ‘on the face of it, could not be more comprehensive’ but declined to interpret it as absolving the shipping company from liability. He said: ‘If such an extreme width were given to the exemption clause, it would run counter to the main object and intent of the contract. For the contract, as it seems to their Lordships has, as one of its main objects, the proper delivery of the goods by the shipping company, ‘unto order or his or their assigns’, against the production of the bill of lading. It would defeat this object entirely if the shipping company was at liberty, at its own will and pleasure, to deliver the goods to somebody else, to somebody not entitled at all, without being liable for the consequences. The clause must therefore be limited and modified to the extent necessary to enable effect to be given to the main object and intent of the contract . . ‘

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

[1959] AC 576, [1959] 3 All ER 182, [1959] 2 Lloyds Rep 114

Cited by:

MentionedGeorge Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd CA 29-Sep-1982
The buyer bought 30lbs of cabbage seed, but the seed was not correct, and the crop was worthless. The seed cost pounds 192, but the farmer lost pounds 61,000. The seed supplier appealed the award of the larger amount and interest, saying that their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Commonwealth

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266866

Regina v Flaherty and Others: 1968

Asprey J considered the mistakae as to the woman’s consent as a defence to a charge of rape: ‘a long line of authority establishes, at any rate so far as I am concerned, that the defence of mistake requires that the accused holds both an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of a state of facts which, if true, would make the act charged innocent.’

Judges:

Asprey J

Citations:

(1968) 89 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 141

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258682

Hodak v Newman and Hodak: 1993

(Family Court of Australia) Lindenburgh J said: ‘I am of the opinion that the fact of parenthood is to be regarded as an important and significant factor in considering which proposals better advance the welfare of the child. Such fact does not, however, establish a presumption in favour of the natural parent, nor generate a preferential position in favour of the natural parent from which the Court commences its decision-making process . . Each case should be determined upon an examination of its own merits and of the individuals there involved.’

Judges:

Lindenmayer J

Citations:

(1993) 17 Fam LR 1, [1993] FamCA 83, (1993) FLC 92-421

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

ApprovedRice v Miller 10-Sep-1993
(Family Court of Australia) Whilst there is a legislative presumption regarding equal shared parental responsibility between parents there is no presumption in favour of parents (jointly or severally) as regards the placement of children nor a . .
ApprovedRe Evelyn CA 1998
. .
CitedIn Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Commonwealth

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244487

Thompson Newspapers Ltd v Director of Investigation and Research: 1990

(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered a claim to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination.
Held: Whereas a compelled statement is evidence that would not have existed independently of the exercise of the powers of compulsion, evidence which exists independently of the compelled statements could have been found by other means and its quality does not depend on its past connection with the compelled statement. Accordingly evidence of the latter type is in no sense ‘testimonial’ and PSI ought not to attach to it.
Justice La Forest: ‘there is an important difference between the type of prejudice that will be suffered in the two cases. It is only when the testimony itself has to be relied on that the accused can be said to have been forced to actually create self-incriminatory evidence in his or her own trial. The compelled testimony is evidence that simply would not have existed independently of the exercise of the power to compel it; it is in this sense evidence which could have been obtained only from the accused.
By contrast, evidence derived from compelled testimony is, by definition, evidence that existed independently of the compelled testimony. This follows logically from the fact that it was evidence which was found, identified or understood as a result of the ‘clues’ provided by the compelled testimony. Although such evidence may have gone undetected or unappreciated in the absence of the compelled clues, going undetected or unappreciated is not the same thing as non-existence. The mere fact that the derivative evidence existed independently of the compelled testimony means that it could have been found by some other means, however low the probability of such discovery may have been . . . the difference between evidence which the accused has been forced to create (the compelled testimony), and the independently existing evidence he or she has been forced to assist in locating, identifying or explaining (evidence derived from compelled testimony), will be readily discernible. I believe its significance will be equally apparent.
The fact that derivative evidence exists independently of the compelled testimony means, as I have explained, that it could also have been discovered independently of any reliance on the compelled testimony. It also means that its quality as evidence does not depend on its past connection with the compelled testimony. Its relevance to the issues with which the subsequent trial is concerned, as well as the weight it is accorded by the trier of fact, are matters that can be determined independently of any consideration of its connection with the testimony of the accused.. . . What prejudice can an accused be said to suffer from being forced to confront evidence ‘derived’ from his or her compelled testimony, if that accused would have had to confront it even if the power to compel testimony had not been used against him or her? I do not think it can be said that the use of such evidence would be equivalent to forcing the accused to speak against himself or herself; once the derivative evidence is found or identified, its relevance and probative weight speak for themselves. The fact that such evidence was found through the evidence of the accused in no way strengthens the bearing that it, taken by itself, can have upon the questions before the trier of fact.’ and
‘In my view, derivative evidence that could not have been found or appreciated except as a result of the compelled testimony under the Act should in the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion be excluded since its admission would violate the principles of fundamental justice. As will be evident from what I have stated earlier, I do not think such exclusion should take place if the evidence would otherwise have been found and its relevance understood. There is nothing unfair in admitting relevant evidence of this kind …”
. . . In our judgment, the answer to the question posed by the Attorney General is ‘No’. We say that for a number of reasons. First, there is no doubt, and indeed it is not disputed before this court, that the privilege against self-incrimination is not absolute and in English law Parliament has, for a variety of reasons, in a whole range of different statutory contexts, made inroads upon that privilege.
So far as the English courts are concerned, there is, as it seems to us, no doubt that the documents to which we have referred would be regarded as admissible as a matter of law, subject of course to the trial judge’s discretion to exclude under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The question which next arises is whether, in deference to the Strasbourg jurisprudence, this court should give a different answer to that which the English courts and the will of Parliament otherwise suggest. It seems to us that the distinction made in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the European Court of Human Rights’s judgment in Saunders’s case 23 EHRR 313, between statements made and other material independent of the making of a statement, is not only one to which we should have regard, but is one which, as it seems to us, is jurisprudentially sound. We say this for the reasons advanced in the judgment of La Forest J in the Thomson Newspapers case 67 DLR (4th) 161 which, via reference to the South African constitutional court’s decision in Ferreira v Levin 1996 (1) SA 984, was before the European Court in Saunders’s case. In our judgment, there is nothing in any of the speeches in Brown v Stott [2001] 2 WLR 817 which contradicts this conclusion. The Privy Council were seeking to limit the scope of the privilege against self-incriminating statements and pre-existing documents revealed by compelled statements were outwith their consideration.’

Judges:

Justice La Forest

Citations:

(1990) 54 CCC 417

Cited by:

CitedC Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.242453

Farrington v Thomson and Bridgland: 1959

(Supreme Court of Victoria) Smith J said: ‘Proof of damage is, of course, necessary in addition. In my view, therefore, the rule should be taken to go this far at least, that if a public officer does an act which, to his knowledge, amounts to an abuse of his office, and he thereby causes damage to another person, then an action in tort for misfeasance in a public office will lie against him at the suit of that person’.

Judges:

Smith J

Citations:

[1959] VR 286

Cited by:

ApprovedTampion v Anderson 1973
(Full Court of Victoria) . .
CitedWatkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.239999

Roncarelli v Duplessis: 1959

(Canada) The court discussed what was ‘targeted malice’ in the context of misfeasance.

Citations:

[1959] SCR 121

Cited by:

CitedOdhavji Estate v Woodhouse 2003
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court reviewed the ingredients of misfeasance in public office.
Held: Iacobucci J said: ‘To summarize, I am of the opinion that the tort of misfeasance in a public office is an intentional tort whose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240008

Gradwell (PTY) v Rostra Printers Ltd: 1959

(South Africa) An offer was made of andpound;42,000 for the shares and the loan account that was then outstanding to the parent company less amounts owed to lenders on first mortgages. An analysis showed that andpound;40,258 was owed on the loan account and taking into account the higher securities the amount actually paid was less than that amount.
Held: The repayment of the loan account would help the purchaser to effect the apparent purchase but the repayment of the debt was held not to infringe the provisions of the section.

Judges:

Schriener J

Citations:

[1959] (4) SA 419

Statutes:

Companies Act 1926 86(2)

Cited by:

CitedAnglo Petroleum Ltd v TFB (Mortgages) Ltd ChD 24-Feb-2006
The company sought to say that loans of 15 million pounds were void under s151 of the 1985 Act. It was said that the loans infringed the provisions of s151 being unlawful financial assistance.
Held: The loans were valid: ‘if it is lawful for a . .
CitedArmour Hick Northern Ltd v Whitehouse; Armour Trust Ltd ChD 1980
A vendor company was assisted by financial assistance given by a subsidiary.
Held: The use of money by a company to repay its existing indebtedness would not normally fall within the concept of the company giving financial assistance to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Commonwealth

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.238728

The Queen in Right of Alberta v Canadian Transport Commission: 1977

The Crown in right of Alberta may be equated with the Government of Alberta.

Citations:

(1977) 75 DLR (3d) 257

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.231158

Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung: PC 1987

Textile export quotas (a permission to export textiles) which were surplus to the exporter’s requirements, which could be bought and sold under the apprpriate Hong Kong legislation, may be ‘property’ for the purposes of the law of theft.

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 1339

Cited by:

CitedUltraframe (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 . .
CitedWheatley and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the British Virgin Islands PC 4-May-2006
(The British Virgin Islands) The defendants appealed against convictions for theft and misconduct. Being civil servants they had entered in to contract with companies in which they had interests. . .
CitedRegina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
CitedAssets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another QBD 8-Feb-2007
The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of . .
AppliedRegina v Williams (Jacqueline) and Crick CACD 30-Jul-1993
The defendant was accused of having obtained by deception a mortgage advance, the amount having been paid by electronic transfer.
Held: The sum of money represented by a figure in a bank account was not fully property for the purposes of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.230286

Moevao v Department of Labour: 1980

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

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[1980] 1 NZLR 464

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn 9-Oct-1997
The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225278

Haldane v Haldane: PC 1977

(New Zealand) The court considered how under the New Zealand legislation for ancillary rlief, the court was to deal with property inherited by one party to the marriage: ‘Initially a gift or bequest to one spouse only is likely to fall outside the Act, because the other spouse will have made no contribution to it. But as time goes on, and depending on the nature of the property in question, the other spouse may well have made a direct or indirect contribution to its retention.’

Judges:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1977] AC 673

Cited by:

CitedWhite v White HL 26-Oct-2000
The couple going through the divorce each had substantial farms and wished to continue farming. It had been a long marriage.
Held: Where a division of the assets of a family would satisfy the reasonable needs of either party on an ancillary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Commonwealth

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.197920

Rootes v Shelton: 1965

(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ said: ‘By engaging in a sport or pastime the participants may be held to have accepted risks which are inherent in that sport or pastime: the tribunal of fact can make its own assessment of what the accepted risks are: but this does not eliminate all duty of care of the one participant to the other. Whether or not such a duty arises, and, if it does, its extent, must necessarily depend in each case upon its own circumstances. In this connection, the rules of the sport or game may constitute one of those circumstances: but, in my opinion, they are neither definitive of the existence nor of the extent of the duty; nor does their breach or non-observance necessarily constitute a breach of any duty found to exist.’
Kitto J said: ‘in a case such as the present, it must always be a question of fact, what exoneration from a duty of care otherwise incumbent upon the defendant was implied by the act of the plaintiff in joining in the activity. Unless the activity partakes of the nature of a war or of something else in which all is notoriously fair, the conclusion to be reached must necessarily depend, according to the concepts of common law, upon the reasonableness, in relation to the special circumstances, of the conduct which caused the plaintiff’s injury. That does not necessarily mean the compliance of that conduct with the rules, conventions or customs (if there are any) by which the correctness of conduct for the purpose of the carrying on of the activity as an organised affair is judged; for the tribunal of fact may think that in the situation in which the plaintiff’s injury was caused a participant might do what the defendant did and still not be acting unreasonably, even though he infringed the ‘rules of the game’. Non-compliance with such rules, conventions or customs (where they exist) is necessarily one consideration to be attended to upon the question of reasonableness; but it is only one, and it may be of much or little or even no weight in the circumstances.’

Judges:

Barwick CJ, Kitto J

Citations:

(1968) ALR 33, (1967) 116 CLR 383

Cited by:

ApprovedCondon v Basi CA 30-Apr-1985
The parties were playing football. The defendant executed a late dangerous and foul tackle on the plaintiff breaking his leg. The defendant was sent off, and the plaintiff sued.
Held: Those taking part in competitive sport still owed a duty of . .
CitedBlake v Galloway CA 25-Jun-2004
The claimant was injured whilst playing about with other members of his band throwing sticks at each other. The defendant appealed against a denial of his defence on non fit injuria.
Held: The horseplay in which the five youths were engaged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Commonwealth

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.194827

Classic International Pty Ltd v Lagos: 2002

(New South Wales Supreme Court) ‘I am satisfied that both parties believed that the agreement for lease would validly take effect according to its terms and that had they known of the substantial variation which the Retail Leases Act 1994 would impose upon the agreement, they would not have entered into it’ and ’42. I do not need to consider the vexed question of whether the mistake in the present case is one of fact or one of law. As to whether, in the law of Australia, the doctrine of common ‘mistake applies to’ a mistake of law, I need do no more that set out the following passage from Cheshire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract 8th Aust Ed., para 12.8: ‘Operative mistake traditionally has been confined to mistakes of fact and not of law. This distinction has always been blurred and has been notoriously difficult to apply. It appears that equity did not draw a clear line between mistakes of fact and law. If there was such a rule, it was often honoured in the breach. In Western Australia the law/fact distinction has been abolished by legislation (with certain safeguards). The whole question has now almost certainly been laid to rest by the decision of the High Court in David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 175 CLR 353. In that case the distinction between mistake of law and mistake of fact was rejected in the light of a very considerable body of judicial and academic criticism of the distinction. . . . the rule precluding recovery of moneys paid under a mistake of law should be held not to form part of the law in Australia.’

Judges:

Palmer J

Citations:

[2002] NSWSC 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMargaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co QBD 30-Oct-2003
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Equity, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187292

Maxwell v Murphy: 1957

Sir Owen Dixon CJ said: ‘The general rule of the common law is that a statute changing the law ought not, unless the intention appears with reasonable certainty, to be understood as applying to facts or events that have already occurred in such a way as to confer or impose or otherwise affect rights or liabilities which the law had defined by reference to the past events.’ and ‘A cause of action which can be enforced is a very different thing to a cause of action the remedy for which is barred by lapse of time. Statutes which enable a person to enforce a cause of action which was then barred or provide a bar to an existing cause of action by abridging the time for its institution could hardly be described as merely procedural. They would affect substantive rights.’

Judges:

Sir Owen Dixon CJ

Citations:

(1957) 96 CLR 261

Cited by:

CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
CitedYew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara PC 7-Oct-1982
(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent’s bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Commonwealth

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184431

Gokal Chand v Hukam Chand-Nath Mal: PC 1921

While training for the ICS, the family member had been supported out of joint family resources it was held that the income earned by him from an appointment in the ICS was property of the joint family. This was a strict interpretation of the Hindu Fruits of learning doctrine.

Citations:

(1921) LR 48 IA 162

Cited by:

CitedSingh v Singh and Another ChD 8-Apr-2014
The parties disputed ownership of various valuable properties. The father asserted that they were held under trusts following the Mitakshara Hindu code, under a common intention constructive trust. The son said that properties held in his own name . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.523689

Paxhaven Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General: 1974

(New Zealand) The court considered what interest in land was required to found an action in private nuisance: ‘In my opinion, however, the matter is clear in principle. In an action for nuisance the defence of jus tertii is excluded, and it is no answer for the respondent to contend in the present case that the nuisance was committed on an area of land mistakenly included in the grant of lease to the appellant from its landlord. De facto possession is sufficient to give the appellant his remedy’

Judges:

Mahon J

Citations:

[1974] 2 NZLR 185

Citing:

AppliedFoster v Warblington Urban District Council CA 1906
A nuisance was caused by the discharge of sewage by the defendant council into oyster beds. The plaintiff was an oyster merchant who had for many years been in occupation of the oyster beds which had been artificially constructed on the foreshore, . .

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195591

Regina v Sawyer: 2001

(Canada) the court considered the reasons underlying the need for secrecy of a jury’s deliberations: ‘The first reason supporting the need for secrecy is that confidentiality promotes candour and the kind of full and frank debate that is essential to this type of collegial decision making. While searching for unanimity, jurors should be free to explore out loud all avenues of reasoning without fear of exposure to public ridicule, contempt or hatred. This rationale is of vital importance to the potential acquittal of an unpopular accused, or one charged with a particularly repulsive crime. In my view, this rationale is sound, and does not require empirical confirmation. The Court of Appeal also placed considerable weight on the second rationale for the secrecy rule: the need to ensure finality of the verdict. Describing the verdict as the product of a dynamic process, the court emphasized the need to protect the solemnity of the verdict, as the product of the unanimous consensus which, when formally announced, carries the finality and authority of a legal pronouncement. That rationale is more abstract, and inevitably invites the question of why the finality of the verdict should prevail over its integrity in cases where that integrity is seriously put in issue. In a legal environment such as ours, which provides for generous review of judicial decisions on appeal, and which does not perceive the voicing of dissenting opinions on appeal as a threat to the authority of the law, I do not consider that finality, standing alone, is a convincing rationale for requiring secrecy. The respondent, as well as the interveners supporting its position and, in particular, the Attorney General of Quebec, place great emphasis on the third main rationale for the jury secrecy rule – the need to protect jurors from harassment, censure and reprisals. Our system of jury selection is sensitive to the privacy interests of prospective jurors (see R v Williams [1998] 1 SCR 1128), and the proper functioning of the jury system, a constitutionally protected right in serious criminal charges, depends upon the willingness of jurors to discharge their functions honestly and honourably. This in turn is dependent, at the very minimum, on a system that ensures the safety of jurors, their sense of security, as well as their privacy. I am fully satisfied that a considerable measure of secrecy surrounding the deliberations of the jury is essential to the proper functioning of that important institution and that the preceding rationales serve as a useful guide to the boundaries between the competing demands of secrecy and reviewability.’

Judges:

Arbour J

Citations:

[2001] 2 SCR 344

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192267

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand Ltd: PC 1 Nov 1995

(New Zealand) The taxpayer company sold cars to its dealers who resold them with warranties, for which it gave the dealers indemnities calculated on statistical average. The company sought to set off the reserve it created to make payments under the indemnities against the revenue of the year in which the cars were sold. The commissioner appealed its case to the Board.
Held: The reserve was claimable in the year of the car sale, even though the losses remained contingent. On the year of the sale the company acquired an accrued legal obligation, and had properly deducted the liabilities incurred against its profits.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-1995, [1996] AC 315

Statutes:

Inland revenue Act 1976 (New Zealand) 104

Income Tax, Commonwealth

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79312

Du Toit and Vos v Minister for Welfare and Population Development: 10 Sep 2002

(South African Constitutional Court) Prospective adoptive parents were a same-sex couple who challenged laws preventing them from adopting. The court said: ‘In their current form the impugned provisions exclude from their ambit potential joint adoptive parents who are unmarried, but who are partners in permanent same-sex life partnerships and who would otherwise meet the criteria set out in section 18 of the Child Care Act . . Their exclusion surely defeats the very essence and social purpose of adoption which is to provide the stability, commitment, affection and support important to a child’s development, which can be offered by suitably qualified persons . . Excluding partners in same sex life partnerships from adopting children jointly where they would otherwise be suitable to do so is in conflict with the principle [of the paramountcy of the interests of the child] . . It is clear from the evidence in this case that even though persons such as the applicants are suitable to adopt children jointly and provide them with family care, they cannot do so. The impugned provisions . . thus deprive children of the possibility of a loving and stable family life . . The provisions of the Child Care Act thus fail to accord paramountcy to the best interests of the children.’

Citations:

(2002) 13 BHRC 187, [2002] ZACC 20, CCT 40/01

Links:

Saflii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270010

Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v Mann: PC 1961

The respondent Mann practiced as a solicitor in partnership with Richardson. They kept a ‘trust account’ in the partnership name with the Australian and New Zealand Bank in Sydney (‘ANZ’). Under the partnership agreement, all assets belonged to Mann, but cheques might be drawn on the partnership bank account by either. Mann gave the necessary authority to ANZ. Richardson used that authority to draw cheques, inserting on each after the printed word ‘Pay’, the words ‘Bank cheque favour H. Ward’ or ‘Bank cheque H. Ward;’. He also filed application forms for bank cheques in favour of H. Ward to a like amount, purporting to sign them on behalf of the firm. He took the documents to ANZ, which in each case debited the firm’s account and issued a bank draft of an equal amount in the form ‘Pay H. Ward or bearer.’ He took the cheques to the appellant bank, and cashed them over the counter. The bank paid the cheques. He was fraudulent throughout; Ward was not a client of the partnership, nor had any client authorised the payment to him of any money held in the trust account. Mann sued the appellant bank for conversion of the bank cheques, or alternatively to recover the sums received by it from ANZ bank as money had and received to his use. He succeeded before the trial judge, whose decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. Mann never obtained any title to the cheques, and he could not obtain title by ratifying the conduct of Richardson in obtaining the cheques from ANZ bank, without at the same time ratifying the dealings in the cheques by Ward and the appellant bank. Mann’s claim for damages for conversion failed, and that his alternative claim for money had and received also failed. Where a partner in a firm wrongfully draws a cheque on the partnership account, the proceeds of the cheque are legally his.
Viscount Simonds said: ‘It is important to distinguish between what was Richardson’s authority in relation on the one hand to the A.N.Z. bank and on the other to Mann. No question arises in these proceedings between Mann and the A.N.Z. bank. It is clear that Mann could not as between himself and the bank question Richardson’s authority to draw cheques on the trust account. The position as between Mann and Richardson was different. Richardson had no authority, express or implied, from Mann either to draw cheques on the trust account or to obtain bank cheques in exchange for them except for the proper purposes of the partnership. If he exceeded those purposes, his act was unauthorised and open to challenge by Mann. It is in these circumstances that the question must be asked whether, as the judge held, the bank cheques were throughout the property of Mann. It is irrelevant to this question what was the relation between Richardson and Ward and whether the latter gave any consideration for the bank cheques that he received and at what stage Mann learned of the fraud that had been practised upon him. The proposition upon which the respondent founds his claim is simple enough: Richardson was his partner and in that capacity was able to draw upon the trust account and so to obtain from the bank its promissory notes: therefore the notes were the property of the partnership and belonged to Mann, and Richardson could not give a better title to a third party than he himself had.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest

Citations:

[1961] AC 1, [1960] 3 All ER 482

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedUnion Bank of Australia Ltd v McClintock PC 1922
Where a partner obtains money by drawing on a partnership bank account without authority, he alone and not the partnership obtains legal title to the money so obtained. . .

Cited by:

CitedLipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Company, Banking, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.259437

Eadie and Thomas v Riverbend Bed and Breakfast and others (No 2): 2012

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal – a gay couple had reserved a room in bed and breakfast accommodation offered by a Christian couple in their own home, but when the husband learned that the couple were gay, the booking was cancelled.
Held: There had been a failure in the duty of reasonable accommodation, in the offensive manner of the cancellation and the failure to explore alternatives.

Citations:

2012 BCHRT 247

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Discrimination

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540518

New Zealand Forest Products Finance NV v Commissioner of Inland Revenue: 1995

(New Zealand) The taxpayer company was established in the Netherlands Antilles as the subsidiary of a New Zealand parent company. It was a vehicle company whose purpose was to raise borrowings on the Eurobond market and to lend the money on to the New Zealand parent for use in its business or in the businesses of the group. The Netherlands Antilles subsidiary of the ABN group was engaged to act as manager and bookkeeper of the company and subsequently was appointed a director of it. The ABN subsidiary provided a registered office, and ensured compliance with Netherlands Antilles laws and with the articles of association of the company. It also attended to the day to day management of the company. Proposals for bond issues originated with the parent company in New Zealand, but were actually carried into effect by the Netherlands Antilles subsidiary, which had a local board of directors. For some of the time one of the directors was a New Zealander who was also a director of the parent company.
Held: [‘the objector’ means the Netherlands Antilles subsidiary] ‘All the objector’s decisions in respect of issues were taken at meetings outside New Zealand. The issues could not proceed without those decisions. Plainly those decisions of policy in respect of the borrowing were first undertaken by those responsible for NZFP [the parent company], with the reasonable expectation that they would find favour with the directors of the objector, particularly when in the time of Mr Wylie he was a director of both boards and other Australasian directors were closely associated with NZFP.
It is also clear upon the evidence, however, that the decisions of the directors of the objector were those of the objectors [sic] independently. . .
Applying the De Beers test, it is clear the central management and control of the objector was at all times outside New Zealand. All decisions taken by its directors were taken outside New Zealand, as were its shareholders’ meetings and its essential management functions, which took place in Curacao. The Commissioner has argued that the true centre of management and control was Auckland and that the board of the objector merely rubber stamped NZFP decisions. As already indicated, that ignores both the legal and the factual position. . . The Commissioner’s position confuses NZFC’s policy and influence with its powers. . . [I]t was not in the interests of NZFP that the directors of the objector should act as pawns or rubber stamps in the way submitted by the Commissioner and they did not do so. . . The control and management of the objector was in the hands of its directors and, as already indicated, that was at no time exercised in New Zealand.’

Judges:

Doogue J

Citations:

(1995) 17 NZTC 12,073

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUnit Construction Co Ltd v Bullock HL 30-Nov-1959
The UK parent company owned subsidiaries incorporated in East Africa and carried on trading activities there. The managing director of the parent company concluded that ‘the situation of the African subsidiaries was becoming so serious that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.224813

Ter Neuzen v Korn: 19 Oct 1995

CANLII (Supreme Court of Canada) The plaintiff underwent AI treatment by the defendant, during the course of which she contracted HIV-AIDS. She claimed in negligence and contract.
Held: A court must consider whether a common law warranty of fitness and merchantability should be implied into the contract which includes services as well as the provision of materials. However, such a warranty will not be implied in all circumstances. The court must examine the specific nature of the contract and the relationship between the parties in order to assess whether it was the intention of the parties that such a warranty be implied. Courts must be very cautious in their approach to implying contractual terms. A rationale for implying warranties in contracts of goods and services is that a supplier of goods generally has recourse against the manufacturer under the Sale of Goods Act as a result of the statutory conditions imposed. While it is true that the primary purpose of the implied warranty is to hold the supplier of goods liable notwithstanding the absence of negligence, different considerations apply in the context of the medical profession than in the ordinary commercial context. The doctor cannot trace the liability back to the initial manufacturer. Moreover, it must be recognized that biological products such as blood and semen, unlike manufactured products, carry certain inherent risks. It would be inappropriate to imply a warranty of fitness and merchantability in the circumstances of this case. Moreover, any warranty would simply be to take reasonable care.

Judges:

La Forest, L’Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ

Citations:

[1995] 3 SCR 674

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Commonwealth, Contract, Negligence, Damages

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.402550

Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd: 30 Oct 1997

SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) Bankruptcy – Property of bankrupt – Salary, wages or other remuneration – Undischarged bankrupt bringing action for wrongful dismissal – Whether damages for wrongful dismissal included in ‘salary, wages or other remuneration’ – Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B 3, s. 68(1).
Civil procedure – Wrongful dismissal – Undischarged bankrupt seeking damages for wrongful dismissal – Whether undischarged bankrupt can bring action for wrongful dismissal in his own name.
Employment law – Wrongful dismissal – Employee summarily discharged seeking damages for wrongful dismissal – Trial judge awarding employee damages based on 24 month notice period and aggravated damages – Whether Court of Appeal erred in reducing reasonable notice period to 15 months – Whether Court of Appeal erred in overturning aggravated damages award – Whether action can be brought for ‘bad faith discharge’ – Whether employee entitled to punitive damages.

Judges:

Lamer CJ and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ

Citations:

[1997] 3 SCR 701, [1997] 152 DLR (4th) 1, 219 NR 161

Links:

Canlii short, Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedGAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs CA 30-Jan-2008
The claimant had been awarded damages for unfair constructive dismissal. The employer appealed an award of damages for the period prior to the acceptance by the employee of the repudiatory breach.
Held: Where a claimant’s losses arose before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Employment, Damages

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.375114

Morris Manning and the Church of Scientology of Toronto v S Casey Hill and The Attorney General for Ontario and others: 20 Jul 1995

(Supreme Court of Canada) The publication of defamatory statements ‘constitutes an invasion of the individual’s personal privacy and is an affront to that person’s dignity’.

Judges:

La Forest, L’Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ

Citations:

1995 CanLII 59 (S.C.C.)

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedPanday v Gordon PC 5-Oct-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) A senior politician had accused an opponent of pseudo-racism. The defendant asserted that he had a defence under the constitution, allowing freedom of political speech.
Held: The appeal failed. The statements were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230975

Nankissoon Boodram v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 19 Feb 1996

The court considered the effect of prejudicial reporting on a trial: ‘In a case such as this, the publications either will or will not prove to have been so harmful that when the time for the trial arrives the techniques available to the trial judge for neutralising them will be insufficient to prevent injustice. The proper forum for a complaint about publicity is the trial court, where the judge can assess the circumstances which exist when the defendant is about to be given in charge of the jury, and decide whether measures such as warnings and directions to the jury, peremptory challenge and challenge for cause will enable the jury to reach its verdict with an unclouded mind, or whether exceptionally a temporary or even permanent stay of the prosecution is the only solution.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

[1996] AC 842, (1996) 47 WIR 459

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThakur Persad Jaroo v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 4-Feb-2002
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant sought a declaration that his constitutional rights had been infringed. He had bought a car. When told it may be stolen, he took it to the police station, but after he heard nothing and it was not returned. He . .
CitedIndependent Publishing Company Limited v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, The Director of Public Prosecutions PC 8-Jun-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The newspapers had been accused of contempt of court having reported matters in breach of court orders, and the editors committed to prison after a summary hearing: ‘In deciding whether . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others PC 12-Jun-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been charged in 1981 with offences alleged to have been committed shortly before. The proceedings continued until his appeal for one was dismissed in 1988. The wounding charges were proceeded with only in . .
CitedNoel Heath and Glenroy Matthew v The Government of the United States of America PC 28-Nov-2005
PC (St. Christopher and Nevis) The defendants resisted extradition to the US to face charges relating to importating of unlawful drugs.
Held: There was nothing in the arguments proposed to support an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Media

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180976

Super Industrial Services Ltd and Another v National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd: PC 16 Jul 2018

(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the effect of provisions in Trinidadian law for automatic striking out of claim.

Judges:

Lord Mance, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Briggs

Citations:

[2018] UKPC 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Commonwealth

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619846

Erikson v Carr: 1945

New South Wales – an individual was alleged to have disentitled himself to commission as a result of a breach of duty.
Held: Though the legal rights of the parties would depend on the jury’s conclusions as to, among other things, ‘whether it was partnership or agency’.
Jordan CJ had observed that ‘if a partner in a subsisting partnership finds that his co-partner has made a secret profit for which he is accountable to the firm, this does not entitle him to rescind the partnership ab initio’ but ‘to require the amount to be brought into the partnership account so that he may receive his proper share of it’, while ‘[i]f a person, acting as agent under a subsisting contract of commission agency, accepts a secret commission in relation to an agency transaction, he must account for it to his principal’ and ‘[o]rdinarily he also forfeits his right to commission’

Judges:

Jordan CJ

Citations:

(1945) 46 SR (NSW) 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHosking v Marathon Asset Management Llp ChD 5-Oct-2016
Loss of agent’s share for breach within LLP
The court was asked whether the principle that a fiduciary (in particular, an agent) who acts in breach of his fiduciary duties can lose his right to remuneration, is capable of applying to profit share of a partner in a partnership or a member of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Agency

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.569931

Dunbee Ltd v Gilman and Co, (Australia) Pty Ltd: 1968

New South Wales Court of Appeal -The court was asked to enforce an English default judgment. The judgment debtor had ‘agree[d] to submit to the jurisdiction’ of the English court by virtue of a contractual provision that the agreement was ‘governed by and construed under the Laws of England’.
Held: Walsh J referred to the division of authority (particularly between Emanuel v Symon and Blohn v Desser) on the question whether a submission could be implied, but said that that need not be decided. If the agreement had to be an express one, it was not essential that a particular form of words should be used: it could mean only that the express terms of the contract, when properly construed, contained an agreement to submit. If an implied agreement sufficed, there was nothing which could lead to the conclusion that, if the agreement was silent on the question, a term could be implied that the judgment debtor had submitted to the jurisdiction. The fact that leave could be given to serve proceedings under RSC Order 11 by virtue of the choice of English law did not amount to a law which ‘govern[ed]’ the contract.

Judges:

Walsh J

Citations:

[1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 394, (1968) 70 SR (NSW) 219

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.565130

Regina v Cey: 1989

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal – The defendant was accused of assault committed during the course of a game of ice hockey.
Held: (Majority) The game was very physical, but even so: ‘some forms of bodily contact carry with them such a high risk of injury and such a distinct probability of serious harm as to be beyond what, in fact, the players commonly consent to, or what, in law, they are capable of consenting to.’ (Gerwing JA)
Objective criteria are to be used to determine whether the consent defence can applym, including:
(a) the conditions in which the game was played;
(b) the nature and circumstances of the act;
(c) how much force was used;
(d) the victim’s injury, and
(e) the state of mind of the accused.

Judges:

Gerwing JA, Cameron JA

Citations:

(1989) 48 CCC (3d) 480

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Barnes CACD 21-Dec-2004
The defendant appealed against a conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm, after causing a serious leg injury in a football match when tackling another player.
Held: There was surprisingly little authority on when it was appropriate to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.566847

Fontin v Katapodis: 10 Dec 1962

(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff struck the defendant with a weapon, a wooden T-square. It broke on his shoulder. The defendant then picked up a sharp piece of glass with which he was working and threw it at the plaintiff, causing him severe injury. The Judge had reduced the damages from andpound;2,850 to andpound;2,000 by reason of the provocation.
Held: Provocation could be used to wipe out the element of exemplary or aggravated damages but could not be used to reduce the actual figure of pecuniary compensation. So they increased the damages to the full andpound;2,850.

Judges:

Sir Owen Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Owen JJ

Citations:

[1962] 108 CLR 177, [1963] ALR 582, 36 ALJR 283, [1962] HCA 63

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedLane v Holloway CA 30-Jun-1967
In the context of a fight with fists, ordinarily neither party has a cause of action for any injury suffered during the fight. But they do not assume ‘the risk of a savage blow out of all proportion to the occasion. The man who strikes a blow of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.258462

Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA and Others: PC 21 Jul 1994

Lex loci delicti (the law of the jurisdiction in which the act complained of took place) can exceptionally be used when the lex fori (the jurisdiction formally assigned) gives no remedy. In the case of a claim under a foreign tort, the double actionability exception may be applied to allow use of the lex loci delicti. Lord Slynn: ‘Their Lordships, having considered all of these opinions, recognise the conflict which exists between, on the one hand, the desirability of a rule which is certain and clear on the basis of which people can act and lawyers advise and, on the other, the desirability of the courts having the power to avoid injustice by introducing an element of flexibility into the rule. They do not consider that the rejection of the doctrine of the proper law of the tort as part of English law is inconsistent with a measure of flexibility being introduced into the rules. They consider that the majority in Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 recognised the need for such flexibility. They accept that the law of England recognises that a particular issue between the parties to litigation may be governed by the law of the country which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties. They agree with the statement of Lord Wilberforce, at pp 391-392, . . as to the extent and application of the exception. They accept, as he did, that the exception will not be successfully invoked in every case or even, probably, in many cases and, at p 391H, that ‘The general rule must apply unless clear and satisfying grounds are shown why it should be departed from and what solution, derived from what other rule, should be preferred.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn

Citations:

Gazette 09-Nov-1994, Ind Summary 26-Sep-1994, Times 21-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 AC 190

Citing:

CitedWarren v Warren 1972
(Australia) The plaintiff was injured in a car accident while on a visit to New South Wales, where she had no right of action in tort against her husband. She began her action in Queensland, where she was ordinarily resident and domiciled where such . .
Appeal fromRed Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA and Others 1993
Hong Kong . .

Cited by:

CitedChagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
CitedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85926

Rees and Others v Crane: PC 30 Mar 1994

(Trinidad and Tobago) A High Court judge complained that he had been unlawfully excluded from the roster of sittings for the following term.
Held: The procedure to suspend judge had to be followed closely. In this case there had been a breach of natural justice. His fundamental right to the protection of the law under paragraph 4(b) of the Constitution, that is the right to the protection of the law, had been violated. The decision to suspend him was contrary to section 137(1) of the Constitution which provided that: ‘A judge may be removed from office only for inability to perform the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause), or for misbehaviour, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with the provisions of this section.’ That contravention could not be corrected retrospectively by a later suspension order.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Mar-1994, [1994] 2 AC 173

Cited by:

CitedNaidike, Naidike and Naidike v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 12-Oct-2004
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant was arrested following expiry of the last of his work permits and after he had failed to provide evidence of his intention to leave. As he was arrested he was also arrested for assaulting a police officer. He was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85935

Owners of Cargo On K H Enterprise v Owners of Pioneer Container: PC 29 Mar 1994

Owners who were claiming under a bailment must accept the terms of a sub-bailment to which it had agreed. This result is both principled and just. A sub-bailee can only be said for these purposes to have voluntarily taken into his possession the goods of another if he has sufficient notice that a person other than a bailee is interested in the goods so that it can properly be said that (in addition to his duties to the bailee) he has, by taking the goods into his custody, assumed towards that other person the responsibility for the goods which is characteristic of a bailee. This they believe to be the underlying principle.
Where an exclusive jurisdiction clause exists, a party who seeks a stay brought in breach of that agreement to refer disputes to a named forum, will have to show strong cause
Lord Goff asked whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading issued by a sub-bailee was binding on the cargo owner, and said: ‘Here is a ship, upon which the goods are loaded in a large number of containers; indeed, one container may contain goods belonging to a number of cargo owners. One incident may affect goods owned by several cargo owners, or even (as here) all the cargo owners with goods on board. Common sense and practical convenience combine to demand that all of these claims should be dealt with in one jurisdiction, in accordance with one system of law. If this cannot be achieved, there may be chaos. Much expense may be wasted on litigation in a number of different jurisdictions, as indeed happened in the present case, where there was litigation in eight other countries as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan. There is however no international regime designed to produce a uniformity of jurisdiction and governing law in the case of a multiplicity of claims of this kind. It is scarcely surprising therefore that shipowners seek to achieve uniformity of treatment in respect of all such claims, by clauses designed to impose an exclusive jurisdiction and an agreed governing law . . Within reason, such an attempt must be regarded with a considerable degree of sympathy and understanding . . Their Lordships do not consider that it can possibly be said that the incorporation of such a clause in a bill of lading is per se unreasonable.’

Judges:

Lord Goff

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1994, Gazette 11-May-1994, [1994] 2 AC 324

Cited by:

CitedScottish and Newcastle International Limited v Othon Ghalanos Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The defendant challenged a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a claim in contract saying that the appropriate court was in Cyprus. The cargo was taken by ship from Liverpool to Limassol. An English court would only have . .
CitedAngara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and Another QBD 29-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the application of Section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 when an unpaid supplier of bunkers to a time charterer claims against the owner of the vessel.
Held: The issue was whether as a matter of fact there was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Commonwealth, Contract, Agency

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84505

Mills and Others v The Queen: PC 1 Mar 1995

A judge’s identification direction need not always warn on the need for witnesses to be convincing. An unsworn statement from a defendant is significantly inferior to oral evidence.

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 511

Cited by:

CitedAlexander Von Starck v The Queen PC 28-Feb-2000
(Jamaica) The defendant had fatally stabbed a woman. On arrest, he admitted killing her and that he had the knife which he had used to do so. He gave the police officer a pouch containing a knife, on which blood of the same group as that of the . .
CitedAnderson v HM Advocate HCJ 1996
The court considered the effect on a conviction of a failure by defence counsel. After considering the authorities: ‘It can only be said to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice if it has deprived the accused of his right to a fair trial. That . .
CitedBally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Evidence, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83731

Lobban v The Queen: PC 28 Apr 1995

(Jamaica) The judge had no discretion to exclude evidence on request of co-defendant in joint trial. The exculpatory part of co-accused statement not to be excluded since it was his right to have it put in. Those who are charged with an offence allegedly committed in a joint criminal enterprise should generally be tried in a joint trial.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jun-1995, Times 28-Apr-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 877

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
CitedRegina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83125

Logan v The Queen: PC 8 Mar 1996

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

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1996

Cited by:

CitedWilliams v The Queen PC 23-Nov-1998
(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) The defendant was convicted of having killed his wife. He had killed his children but faced no charge on that issue. He complained of the admission of evidence showing that he had killed the children. In his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83150