Case study (answer any 6)

1. Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925]

The defendants’ servant left a motor lorry at the top of a steep and narrow street unattended, with the
engine running, and without having taken proper precautions to secure it. The lorry started off by itself
and ran violently down the incline. The plaintiff’s wife, who had been walking up the street with her
children, had just parted with them a little a point where the street makes a bend, when she saw the
lorry rushing round the bend towards her. She became very frightened for the safety of her children,
who by that time were out of sight round the bend, and who she knew must have met the lorry in its
course. She was almost immediately afterwards informed by bystanders that a child the description of
one of hers had been injured. In consequence of her fright and anxiety she suffered a nervous shock
which eventually caused her death, whereby her husband lost the benefit of her services.

2. Martin v. Herzog, (1920)

Martin (P) was driving his buggy on the night of August 21, 1915. P was killed in a collision between his
buggy and Herzog's (D) car. It was dark when the accident occurred. P was driving without lights and D
did not keep to the right of the center of the highway. P alleged that D was driving on the wrong side of
the road. D claimed that P was contributorily negligent for driving without headlights as required under
the law. In the body of the charge the trial judge said that the jury could consider the absence of light "in
determining whether the plaintiff's intestate was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to have a
light upon the buggy as provided by law. I do not mean to say that the absence of light necessarily
makes him negligent, but it is a fact for your consideration." D requested a ruling that the absence of a
light on the plaintiff's vehicle was "prima facie evidence of contributory negligence." This request was
refused, and the jury were again instructed that they might consider the absence of lights as some
evidence of negligence, but that it was not conclusive evidence. P then requested a charge that "the fact
that the plaintiff's intestate was driving without a light is not negligence in itself," and to this the court
acceded. The jury was instructed that they were at liberty to treat the omission of the lights either as
innocent or as culpable. The jury gave the verdict to P. The Appellate Division reversed that verdict. P
appealed to the Court of Appeals.

3. Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146, CA

The plaintiff, a police constable, was on duty inside a police station in a street in which, at the material
time, were a large number of people, including children. Seeing the defendants’ runaway horses with a
van attached coming down the street he rushed out and eventually stopped them, sustaining injuries in
consequence, in respect of which he claimed damages.
 Case study (answer any 6)
4. Decision of Finlay J. [1934] 2 K. B. 240 affirmed.

A company, which carried on business as builders and contractors, undertook work on a well which
involved clearing it of water. The well was some fifty feet deep and about six feet in diameter. H, a
director of the company, and W and another workman employed by the company, erected a platform
twenty-nine feet down the well and some nine feet above the water and lowered on to it a petrol-driven
pump. After the engine of this pump had worked for about one and a half hours it stopped and a haze of
fumes was visible in the well. The working of the petrol engine created also a dangerous concentration
of carbon monoxide, a colorless gas. H returned to the well after working hours that evening and
observed the haze and noticed a smell of fumes. On the following morning at about 7.30 a.m. H
instructed the two workmen to go to the well, but said to W “Don’t go down that bloody well until I
come”. The workmen arrived at the well at about 8.15 a.m., and, before H had arrived, one of the
workmen went down the well and a few minutes later the other workman also went down it. Both were
overcome by fumes. A doctor, who was called to the well, went down the well with a rope tied to his
body in order to see if he could rescue the men, though be had been warned not to go. He also was
overcome by fumes. Endeavour was made to haul him to the surface by the rope, but the rope caught in
a down pipe in the well and he could not be brought to the surface until help arrived some time later.
He died shortly afterwards.

5. Maternity leave

Mrs. Juthi worked for local NGO for 125 days then she applied for Maternity leave. Company accepted
the application but did not honour the benefits saying that she is not working there more than 6
months. Is there any violation of labour law?

For each of the cases mentioned before,

a. State your decision based on the facts
b. Explain your decision in details using relevant clauses/sections and facts.

1. We assume that Mr. Karim will be entitled to get the following benefits from his
company for the income year 2017-18:
a. Monthly basic salary BDT 40,000
b. House rent 40% of basic salary i.e. BDT 16,000
c. Medical allowance 10% of basic salary i.e. 4,000
d. Conveyance allowance 10% of basic salary i.e. BDT 4,000
e. Employer’s contribution to Recognized Provident Fund (RPF) is 20% of basic salary
i.e. BDT 8,000. Employee also contributes the same amount on this fund.
f. Two festival bonuses equivalent to monthly basic salary
Calculate income tax for Mr. Karim.
 Case study (answer any 6)

2. Assume, abc is a 100% export oriented garment manufacturing company. Financial

information of the company for the year ended are as follows:

a. Sales BDT 24,00,00,000

b. Net profit BDT 5,00,00,000

c. Cash subsidy received BDT 50,00,000

d. Dividend received BDT 5,00,000

e. Dividend given BDT 1,60,00,000

Calculate income tax for abc.

3. Assume, abc is a 100% Bank. Financial information of the company for the year ended
are as follows:

f. Sales BDT 2,10,00,00,000

g. Net profit BDT 9,00,00,000

h. Cash subsidy received BDT 2,00,00,000

i. Dividend received BDT 3,00,000

j. Dividend given BDT 1,90,00,000

Calculate income tax for abc.