Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A V Hoare
A V Hoare
Addie v Dumbreck
[1929] HL
Whole case
Adomako, R v (1994)
HL
British Railways v
Herrington [1972] HL
C (a minor) v DPP
[1995] HL
Caparo v
Dickman [1990] HL
Cassell v Broome
[1971] HL
in Rookes v Barnard [1964], had been made per incuriam and so they
disregarded it.
Held: Lord Hailsham
Decisions of the House of Lords are binding on the Court of Appeal and
it is not open to that court to advise judges to ignore decisions of the
House on the ground that they were decided per incuriam or are
unworkable Furthermore (per Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC and
Lord Diplock) although it is open to an appellate court to decline to
follow one of its own previous decisions on the ground that it was
decided per incuriam, the Court of Appeal is not entitled to disregard a
decision of the House of Lords, nor is a judge of the High Court entitled
to disregard a decision of the Court of Appeal, on that ground.
Central Asbestos v
Dodd (and
Smith) (1973) HL
Clegg, R v [1995] HL
Conway v Rimmer
[1968] HL
Donoghue v Stevenson
[1932] HL
It was not material who had bought the ginger beer. Or who poured it
into the tumbler.
Whole case here
It was not material that there was no contractual relationship between
C and D.
Lord Atkin made it clear that the ratio was not to be limited to cases
involving snails in ginger-beer bottles.
[A] manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show
that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in
which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate
examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable
care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an
injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer
to take that reasonable care.
However, courts have extended the ratio of Donoghue v Stevenson to
include allsorts of items purchased by consumers. As they have
extended category of persons who are potentially liable.
Fitzleet Estates v
Cherry [1977] HL
This case was part of three conjoined appeals heard at the same time
because they involved the same point of law, namely immunity from
suit by solicitors and barristers.
The case involved negligent advice.
Held: It is arguable that most of this judgment is obiter, since none of
the solicitors in the instant cases were acting as advocates as such at
the time of the acts or omissions complained of. But this is a purely
technical point: the removal of immunity (even by a bare 4-3 majority
in relation to criminal cases) is a clear decision of a strong House and
will almost certainly be applied in all future cases. By a 7 man
court Rondel v Worsley had not been wrongly decided in its time, but
the world was different then. The courts now can strike out claims
which have no real chance of success.
This is also the case where an action appears to be an abuse of the
legal process. This includes those which attempt to re litigate the first
case.
Lawyers not the only professionals who have to balance their duty to an
individual client and a code of ethics.
It is essential to the proper administration of justice that barristers
should be prepared to defend even the most unsavoury characters, who
might well wish their lawyers to use all possible means, ethical or not,
to secure their acquittal. These characters may wish to sue if they are
acquitted on appeal.
Rondel v Worsley [1967] and Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell &
Co. [1980] overruled.
Lord Hoffman:
I do not say that Rondel v Worsley [1969]was wrongly decided at
the time. The world was different then. But, as Lord Reid said then,
public policy is not immutable..
Immunity from suit removed
Howe, R v [1987] HL
James
v Eastleigh Borough
Council [1990] HL
Jobling v Associated
Dairies Ltd. [1981] HL
^[Precedent HoL - doubted and did not follow its own earlier
decision]
D the employer of a workman who suffered a slipped disc through their
negligence. His earning capacity was reduced by half. Four years later,
he was found to have a pre-existing spinal disease unrelated to his
accident. When the case came to trial, he was totally incapable of work.
Held: Doubting and not following their own earlier decision in Baker
v Willoughby [1970]. The employer was liable for only four years'
loss of earnings, this being a rare case in which the "eggshell skull" rule
operated to the benefit of the defendant. The onset of this illness was
"one of the vicissitudes of life relevant to the assessment of damages".
Jones v Secretary of
State for Social
Services [1972] HL
when the judges state what the law is, their decisions do, in the
sense I have described, have a retrospective effect.
I must confess that I cannot imagine how a common law system, or
indeed any legal system, can operate otherwise if the law is be applied
equally to all and yet be capable of organic change.
Knuller v DPP [1973]
HL
London Tramways Co
v LondonCounty Counci
l [1898] HL
McLaughlin v O'Brian
[1982] HL
suffered psychiatric illness from the shock of seeing one daughter dead
and her husband and two other children seriously injured.
Held: Principle not policy keeps the common law flexible and
consistent.
Miliangos v George
Frank Ltd [1975] HL
Mills v HM Advocate
and another (2002) PC
Murphy
v Brentwood DC [1990]
HL
Newsome, R v [1970]
HL
Oldendorff v Tradax
Export [1974] HL
(The Johanna
Oldendorff, E L
Oldendorff & Co GmbH
v Tradax Export SA
[1974] HL)
Pepper (Inspector of
Taxes) v Hart [1993]
HL
Practice Statement
(Judicial Precedent)
[1966] HL
R v R (rape - marital
exemption)[1991] HL
Rookes v Barnard
[1964] HL
Seymour, R v [1983]
HL
Smith, R v (Morgan)
[1998] CA
was provoked.
The focus of the appeal was on the objective part of the test for
provocation and whether the reasonable person could be given certain
characteristics of the accused, in this case the characteristic of having a
severe depressive illness.
Held: The Court declined to follow the opinion in Luc Thiet Thuan v R
[1996] PC.
Privy Council opinion are only persuasive - and preferred its own
decisions - which it considered binding.
Guilty of manslaughter
Note this case went to the Lords and was later effectively
overruled by Jersey v Holley [2005] PC
Southwark London
Borough Council v Mills
(1999) HL
Vestey v
Commissioners of
Inland Revenue [1979]
HL