Multiple issues intromissing March 2009 notable March 2009 unreferenced March 2009 orphan October 2009 Facts The plaintiff owned a Race track racing track which charged admissions to people who placed bets on the races. Taylor the Defendant was a neighbour of Victoria Park . Taylor built a platform on his land to view the races and odds being given at the track. Taylor broadcast this information to people participating in off track betting . The Plaintiff argued that ticket sales were lower as a result of Taylor s broadcasts as people who had previously come to the track were now listening on the radio instead and Taylor was profiting at the expense of the plaintiff. Judgement The plaintiff argued for an injunction against Taylor on 2 major grounds 1 Spectacle The plaintiff argued that spectacle is property. He reasoned that the value of an object to the creator should be a factor in determining whether or not a thing should be recognized as property. The minority judgement was one of support based upon the existence of underlying legal principles. The majority of the court disagreed, however, stating that there existed no precedent for this argument and as such, spectacle should not be considered property. 2 Nuisance The plaintiff argued that Taylor was acting as a nuisance , resulting in an unreasonable and significant interference with the plaintiff s use and enjoyment of property. The majority disagreed, stating there to have been no nuisance as the act of looking over a fence does not interfere with the proceedings of a racecourse . The Court decided not to expand the categories of nuisance. The plaintiff also suggested privacy and non natural use of property as possible foundations for injunction. These arguments were dismissed. Lasting Ramifications of This Case The test for Nuisance is established Nuisance is the unreasonable and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the property the act of looking over and broadcasting events taking place w ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Wrotham Park Estate CoLtdv Parkside Homes Ltd court High Court image Wrotham Park.jpg date filed date decided 11 October 2001 full name citations 1974 1 WLR 798 judges Brightman J prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts Keywords Restitutionary damages Wrotham Park Estate CoLtdv Parkside Homes Ltd 1974 1 WLR 798 is an English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for distress. Facts Parkside built houses on its own land in breach of a restrictive covenant with Wrotham Park Estate in Wrotham Park, Hertfordshire . Wrotham Park sued for breach of the covenant. Judgment Brightman J awarded 2500 damages, or 5 of the anticipated profits of Parkside under the Lord Cairns Act jurisdiction. It refused to make an order, for social and economic grounds, to demolish the houses built. The houses existence did not diminish the property s value at all. But a nominal sum would not be enough to achieve justice. See also Clist remedies English contract law Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc 2003 EWCA Civ 323 Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd 2010 EWHC 2373 QB Notes reflist 2 References Category English contract case law Category English remedy cases ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Chappell & CoLtdv Nestle CoLtd court House of Lords image With the beatles side 1.JPG date decided full name citations 1960 AC 87 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Lord Somervell transcripts keywords Consideration , adequacy, copyright Chappell & CoLtdv Nestle CoLtd 1960 AC 87 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Facts Chappell & Co. owned the copyright to Rockin shoes by The King Brothers . Nestle was giving away records of it to people who sent in three wrappers from 6d chocolate bars, as well as 1s 6d. The Copyright Act 1956 s 8 said a 6.25 royalty needed to be paid on the ordinary retail selling price to the owners of copyrights. Nestle said 1s 6d was the ordinary retail selling price, but Chappell & Co argued that it should be more and sought an injunction for breach of CA 1956 s 8. In this way the question arose ... granted an injunction. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and Chappell & Co appealed. Judgment ... entitling a member to buy at a co operative store. I think they are part of the consideration ... Keith delivered dissenting judgments. See also Clist consideration Bret v JS 1600 Cro Eliz 756, love and affection not good consideration Evans v Llewellin 1787 1 Cox CC 333, share of estate sale set aside on grounds of very low price Thomas v Thomas 1842 2 QB 851, there must be sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law Shadwell v Shadwell 1860 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWHC CP 1860 ... to perform an act already undertaken can be implied Fry v Lane 1888 40 ChD 312, suggested that inadequate consideration not relevant In re Wragg Ltd 1897 1 Ch 796, company law case, where ... Batsakis v. Demotsis , 226 S.W.2d 673 1949 , an American case in which the court held that a few drachma ... 1986 Notes reflist 2 External links http www.youtube.com watch?v gBmsSVnbSK8 Clip of the record from ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Hillas & CoLtdv Arcos Ltd court House of Lords image Timber DonnellyMills2005 SeanMcClean.jpg date decided full name citations 1932 UKHL 2, 1932 147 LT 503 HL judges Lord Wright, Lord Tomlin prior actions 1932 40 Lloyd s Rep CA subsequent actions opinions transcripts http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL 1932 2.html Full text of decision keywords Hillas & CoLtdv Arcos Ltd 1932 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL 1932 2.html UKHL 2 is a landmark House of Lords case on English contract law where the court first began to move away from a strict, literal interpretation of the terms of a contract, and instead interpreted it with a view to preserve the bargain. The Court ruled that judges may imply terms into a contract based on the past dealings of the parties rather than void the agreement. Lord Wright stated in this case that people who give good consideration can bind themselves to a duty to negotiate in good faith, though this was controversially rejected in the later House of Lords case, Walford v Miles . ref 1992 2 AC 128 ref Facts Arcos agreed to supply Hillas with lumber in a contract stating the sale of 22,000 standards of softwood of fair specification . In the contract there was an option to purchase additional 100,000 standards of lumber. The only terms of the option stated, blockquote whatever the conditions are, buyers shall obtain the goods on conditions and at prices which show to them a reduction of 5 per cent on the f.o.b. value of the official price list at any time ruling during 1931. blockquote Hillas tried to exercise the option but Arcos ... he would not have to sell the 100,000 units at a loss. See also Clist enforceability Smith v Hughes 1871 LR 6 QB 597 Hartog v Colin & Shields 1939 3 All ER 566 Frederick E Rose London Ltdv William H Pim Junior & CoLtd 1953 2 QB 450 Notes reflist 2 External links http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL ... J of the Court of Appeal followed the rule set out in the case of May v Butcher which stated ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Nisshin v Cleaves court High Court of Justice of England & Wales, Queen s Bench Division Commercial Court image Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg imagesize 180px caption date decided 7 November 2003 full name Nisshin Shipping CoLtdv Cleaves & CoLtd citations 2003 EWHC 2602 Comm judges The Honourable Mr Justice Colman prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts http www.bailii.org ew cases EWHC Comm 2003 2602.html Full text of judgment keywords Privity, CRTPA 1999 Nisshin Shipping CoLtdv Cleaves & CoLtd 2003 http www.bailii.org cgi bin markup.cgi?doc ew cases EWHC Comm 2003 2602.html&query Nisshin&method boolean EWHC 2602 is an English contract law case concerning the Contracts Rights of Third Parties Act 1999 . Facts Cleaves & Co Limited was a firm of chartering brokers. It negotiated charterparties between Nisshin Shipping Co Limited, the shipowner, and various charterers. Although Cleaves was not a party to any of the charterparties, in each charterparty Nisshin expressly agreed to pay a commission to Cleaves. In each charterparty was an agreement between Nisshin and the charterer to arbitrate disputes. Nisshin subsequently declined to pay the commissions to Cleaves. Cleaves commenced arbitration against Nisshin, purportedly under the arbitration agreements in the charterparties, seeking to recover the unpaid commissions. The arbitral ... under s. 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to challenge both grounds of the tribunal s decision seeking ... and owners to Messrs Ifchor SA Lausanne and Messrs Cleaves and Company Ltd, London on hire earned .... ref name Hayton Hayton, J, Hijackers and Hostages Arbitral Piracy after Nisshin v Cleaves ... burden see, for example, DVA v. Voest Alpine, The Jaybola 1997 2 Lloyd s Rep 279 . The Court decided ... to the owners to challenge the arbitrators jurisdiction on the grounds that the only parties to the arbitration ... in Pepper v Hart , which seem clearly to show that Parliament intended that it should be a matter ... more details
Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & CoLtd 1920 1 Ch 154 is a UK company law case, concerning the alteration of a company s constitution, and the rights of a minority shareholder. Facts The company s articles were changed to allow for the compulsory purchase of shares of any shareholder who was competing with the company. One shareholder was competing with the company and challenged the alteration. He argued that a previous case, Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co ref 1919 1 Ch 290 ref where a change for compulsory share purchase was held invalid as not being bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole, should be applied here too. Judgment The Court of Appeal held that the article alteration was clearly valid, and very much for the benefit of the company. The court made clear that in Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co ref 1919 1 Ch 290 ref Astbury J had been wrong to regard good faith alterations and the company s benefit as two separate ideas. The important question was whether the alteration for the benefit of the company as a whole. See also UK company law Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd 1900 1 Ch 656 Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co 1919 1 Ch 290 Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & CoLtd 1920 1 Ch 154 Dafen Tinplate CoLtdv Llanelly Steel Co 1907 Ltd 1920 2 Ch 124 Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co Maidenhead 1927 1 Ch 154 Southern Foundries 1926 Ltdv Shirlaw 1940 AC 701 Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd 1951 Ch 286 Notes Reflist 2 References DEFAULTSORT Sidebottom V Kershaw, Leese & CoLtd Category United Kingdom company case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case italic title force name Parsons Livestock Ltdv Uttley Ingham & CoLtd court Court ... MR transcripts keywords Parsons Livestock Ltdv Uttley Ingham & CoLtd 1978 QB 791 is an English ... CoLtdv Home Office 1970 AC 1004, 1030. The only problem here is with remoteness of damage. The law as to remoteness Remoteness of damage is beyond doubt a question of law. In C Czarnikow Ltdv ... v Martin & Co Contractors Ltd 1973 QB 27, 36 37. It underlies the words of Lord Wilberforce in Anns ... v Baxendale , 9 Exch. 341 Victoria Laundry Windsor Ltdv Newman Industries Ltd 1949 2 KB 528 and C Czarnikow Ltdv Koufos 1969 1 AC 350. These were all loss of profit cases and the test of reasonable ... authorities are sued in contract or in tort see Esso Petroleum CoLtdv Mardon 1976 QB 801, 802. Instances ... it from the makers, the defendants, Uttley Ingham & CoLtd, who are sheet metal workers ... the speeches in the House of Lords in C Czarnikow Ltdv Koufos 1969 1 AC 350 about remoteness of damage .... blockquote Applying the speeches in C Czarnikow Ltdv Koufos 1969 1 AC 350, that finding would ... Marine Ltdv Washington Iron Works and Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd 1973 6 WWR 692 and by the High Court of Australia in Caltex Oil Australia Pty Ltdv Dredge Willemstad 1976 51 ALGR 270. It seems ... Ltdv Ashington Piggeries Ltd 1972 AC 441. Likewise, the manufacturers and retailers were held liable ... & Marten Ltdv McManus Childs Ltd 1969 1 AC 454. Another familiar class of case is where the occupier ... v Pawson and Leafs Ltd 1932 38 Com.Cas. 151 . So I reach the same result as the judge, but by a different route. I would dismiss the appeal. See also Hadley v Baxendale Victoria Laundry Windsor Ltdv Newman Industries Ltd 1948 2 KB 528 Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd or The Heron II 1969 1 AC 350 South Australia Asset Management Cov York Montague 1996 3 All ER 365 The Achilleas 2008 UKHL 48 Notes reflist ... . Cquote The plaintiffs, H Parsons Livestock Ltd, have a fine herd of nearly 700 pig s at their farm ... more details
Wikify date December 2010 Junior Books Ltdv Veitchi CoLtd 1983 1 AC 520 was a House of Lords judgment on whether a duty of care in tort exists between a contractor or sub contractor and an employer. Facts Veitchi was a special nominated subcontractor employed to lay flooring at Junior Books factory. The floor was defective but as there was only a contract between Junior Books and the main contractor there was no relationship in contract through which Junior Books could sue Veitchi, the subcontractor. Therefore, Junior Books was forced to bring an action in tort, arguing that Veitchi owed Junior Books a non contractual duty of care. Judgment The House of Lords ruled that there was a sufficient degree of proximity between the parties to allow Junior Books to sue in tort. See also Pure economic loss in English Law References reflist UK law DEFAULTSORT Junior Books LtdV Veitchi CoLtd Category Pure economic loss case law Category English tort case law Category House of Lords cases Category 1982 in case law Category 1982 in the United Kingdom UK law stub ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Siebe Gorman & CoLtdv Barclays Bank Ltd court High Court image caption date decided full name citations 1979 2 Lloyd s Rep 142 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Floating charge Siebe Gorman & CoLtdv Barclays Bank Ltd 1979 2 Lloyd s Rep 142 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the definition of a floating charge. It is outdated as authority, in light of the House of Lords decision in Re Spectrum Plus Ltd . Facts Siebe Gorman, a diving equipment company, granted a debenture in favour of Barclays ie got a loan . The document said the loan was a first fixed charge over all present and future book debts . It required Siebe Gorman to pay the proceeds of its book debts into a Barclays bank account, and forbid Siebe Gorman from putting other charges on, or assigning the book debts to anyone else. So there was a prohibition on dealing with the book debts before collection of them. Barclays also had the right to obtain absolute control by giving notice, but that right was never exercised. Judgment Slade J held that it was a fixed charge. The restrictions on Siebe Gorman s power gave the bank enough control to be inconsistent with being a floating charge. See also Clist co security UK company law Floating charge Voidable floating charge Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom insolvency case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Progress Property CoLtdv Moorgarth Group Ltd court Supreme Court image caption date decided full name citations 2010 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKSC 2010 55.html UKSC 55 judges prior actions 2009 EWCA Civ 629 subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Return of capital Progress Property CoLtdv Moorgarth Group Ltd 2010 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKSC 2010 55.html UKSC 55 is a UK company law case concerning the circumstances by which a transaction at an undervalue would be considered an unauthorised return of capital. Facts Tradegro Ltd, which owned approximately ... Investments Pty Ltdv Commissioner of Stamp Duties New South Wales 1958 100 CLR 392, 406 a case ... by Buxton LJ in MacPherson v European Strategic Bureau Ltd 2000 2 BCLC 683, para 59. The deputy ... Ltdv Steedman 2002 SLT 109, para 76 discussed further below . If a controlling shareholder simply ... & CoLtd 1895 1 Ch 674, his state of mind and that of his fellow directors is irrelevant. It does not matter ... well illustrated by the careful judgment of Lord Hamilton in Clydebank Football Club Ltdv Steedman ... 25 . It was a condition of that agreement that Tradegro Ltd would make Progress Properties transfer, under a separate sale agreement, its shareholding in YMS Properties Ltd, a subsidiary of the Progress Properties, to the Moorgarth Group Ltd, a subsidiary of Tradegro Ltd. So at the time of the sale of YMS Ltd its vendor and its purchaser were both under the control of T Ltd. Now led by its new management, Progress Properties alleged that the transfer of its shareholding in YMS Ltd to the Moorgarth ... of YMS Ltd had been at an undervalue, it was a genuine sale, not ultra vires and not an unauthorised ... and Barclays Bank plc v British & Commonwealth Holdings plc 1996 1 BCLC 1 claim for damages ... . He held that the sale of the club s derelict ground at Kilbowie Park, and another site originally ... Vaughan Williams J in Re Kingston Cotton Mill Co No 2 said at 1896 1 Ch, p347 In no one of the cases ... more details
Infobox Court Case italic title force name Victoria Laundry Windsor Ltdv Newman Industries Ltd court Court of Appeal image REA washing machine with wringer.gif date decided full name citations 1949 2 KB 528 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Asquith LJ transcripts keywords Remoteness Victoria Laundry Windsor Ltdv Newman Industries Ltd 1949 2 KB 528 is an English contract law case on the remoteness of damage principle. Facts Newman Industries Ltd was meant to deliver a boiler for Victoria Laundry Windsor Ltd. The delivery was five months late. As a result of not having enough laundry capacity, Victoria Laundry lost a lucrative cleaning contract from the Ministry of Supply . Victoria Laundry sued for the ordinary profit that it had forgone through not having the boiler on time. The question was whether it could also claim the extraordinary profit it would have made, had it been able to take advantage of the lucrative Ministry of Supply contract. Judgment Asquith LJ in the Court of Appeal held that Newman Industries only had to compensate for the ordinary, not the extraordinary loss of profits. He distinguished at p 543 losses from particularly lucrative dyeing contracts as a different type of loss which would only be recoverable if the defendant had sufficient knowledge of them to make it reasonable to attribute to him acceptance of liability for such losses. The vendor of the boilers would have regarded the profits on these contracts as a different and higher form of risk than the general risk of loss of profits by the laundry. See also Hadley v Baxendale 1854 9 Exch 341 Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd or The Heron II 1969 1 AC 350 Parsons Livestock Ltdv Uttley Ingham & CoLtd 1978 1 QB 791 South Australia Asset Management Cov York Montague 1996 3 All ER 365 The Achilleas 2008 UKHL 48 Notes reflist 2 Category English contract case law Category English remedy cases Category English implied terms cases Category Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases Category ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Stewart Gill Ltdv Horatio Myer & CoLtd court Court of Appeal image caption date decided full name citations 1992 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWCA Civ 1992 6.html EWCA Civ 6 , 1992 1 QB 600 judges Fox LJ prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Unfair terms Stewart Gill Ltdv Horatio Myer & CoLtd 1992 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWCA Civ 1992 6.html EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law case on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 . Facts Horatio Myer & CoLtd was buying an overhead conveyor system from Stewart Gill Ltd. It was defective. Myer refused to pay the last 10 instalment. Gill sued. Myer sought to set off the amount it owed against other sums of money it was due to pay, which is a defence to an application for summary judgment. Gill argued that clause 12.4 of the conditions of sale applied, which said The customer shall not be entitled to withhold payment of any amount due to the company under the contract by reason of any payment credit set off counterclaim allegation of incorrect or defective goods or for any other reason whatsoever which the customer may allege excuses him from performing his obligations hereunder. The first issue was whether the clause fell into UCTA 1977 and the second was whether it was unreasonable. Judgment Lord Donaldson MR, noting there was more than one way of killing a cat , held that clause 12.4 was within the scope of UCTA 1977 and it was unreasonable. He held that the purpose of section 13 was to stop precisely this variety of exemption clause the no set off provision in clause 12.4 had the same effect as an exemption clause because it purported preclude a remedy for breach of contract, and was thus caught by section 13 1 b and in turn fell under UCTA 1977 section 3. Stuart Smith LJ held that but for clause 12.4, Myer would have had a right to set off Gill s liability to it. Myer had an equitable right to set off Gill s claims against its claims against Gill. Therefore, clause 12.4 ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Clyde Engineering CoLtdv Cowburn court High Court of Australia image Australian coat of arms 1912 edit.png date decided 19 April 1926 full name Clyde Engineering CoLtdv Cowburn citations http www.austlii.edu.au au cases cth high ct 37clr466.html 1926 37 CLR 466 judges Adrian Knox Knox CJ, Isaac Isaacs Isaacs , H.B. Higgins Higgins , Frank Gavan Duffy Gavan Duffy , Charles Powers Powers , George Rich Rich and Hayden Starke Starke JJ prior actions none subsequent actions none opinions 5 2 The New South Wales Act was held to be inconsistent with the Commonwealth award small per Knox CJ, Gavan Duffy, Isaacs, Rich & Starke JJ Higgins & Powers JJ dissenting small Clyde Engineering CoLtdv Cowburn 1926 37 Commonwealth Law Reports CLR 466 is a High Court of Australia case about inconsistency between a Commonwealth and a States and Territories of Australia State law, which is dealt with in s 109 of the Constitution of Australia Australian Constitution . It contains classic statements of the Denial of request denial of rights test and the covering the field test for inconsistency. Background The Forty Four Hours Week Act 1925 NSW provided that workers under a Commonwealth award which stipulated a Working time working week longer than 44 hours should be paid their full wages if they had worked for 44 hours. Cowburn was an employee of Clyde Engineering CoLtd, and worked a 44 hour week. However, the Commonwealth award stated that a worker who performed less than 48 hours of work should have pay deducted for non attendance. The decision Knox CJ and Gavan Duffy J noted that the impossibility of obedience test see R v Licensing Court of Brisbane Ex parte Daniell may not be appropriate in all circumstances. They formulated a new test where one statute confers a right, and the other takes away the right, even if the right may be waived or abandoned, there is an inconsistency ... was applied later in Victoriav Commonwealth 1937 58 CLR 618 When a State law, if valid, would ... more details
Dafen Tinplate CoLtdv Llanelly Steel Co 1907 Ltd 1920 2 Ch 124 is a UK company law case concerning amendment of the articles of association. Facts Dafen Tinplate CoLtd was a shareholder in Llanelly Steel Co. Llanelly realised that Dafen were buying steel from an alternative source of supply, and also to buy up the company s shares an attempt which failed . Llanelly responded by altering its articles through a special resolution to include a power to Compulsory purchase compulsorily purchase the shares of any member requested to transfer them. Dafen Tinplate argued the alteration was invalid. Judgment The court held that the alteration was too wide to be valid. The altered article would confer too much power on the majority. It went much further than was necessary for the protection of the company. The judge seemed to be using the bona fide for the benefit of the company test in an objective sense, that is, he was judging the situation from the courts point of view. See also Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd 1900 1 Ch 656 Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co 1919 1 Ch 290 Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & CoLtd 1920 1 Ch 154 Dafen Tinplate CoLtdv Llanelly Steel Co 1907 Ltd 1920 2 Ch 124 Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co Maidenhead 1927 1 Ch 154 Southern Foundries 1926 Ltdv Shirlaw 1940 AC 701 Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd 1951 Ch 286 Notes refs 2 DEFAULTSORT Dafen Tinplate CoLtdV Llanelly Steel Co Category United Kingdom company case law ... more details
Infobox SCC case name Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly Douglas and Co. Ltd. full case name Highway Properties Limited and Kelly, Douglas and Company Limited heard date June 22, 1970 decided date February 1, 1971 citations 1971 SCR 562, 1972 2 WWR 28, 1971 CanLII 123 docket history Appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia ruling Appeal Allowed ratio SCC 1970 1973 Unanimous Laskin J. NotParticipating Fauteux C.J.C., Abbott, Hall, Pigeon JJ. LawsApplied Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly Douglas and Co. Ltd. is a leading Canadian property law case concerning commercial landlord tenant law landlord tenant relationships decided by the Supreme Court of Canada . The decision imported the contract law concept of Anticipatory repudiation repudiation and recovery for prospective damages into property law. This gave landlords the right to sue a tenant in the breach of the lease agreement usually by abandonment for recovery of the present value of unpaid future rent as well as any loss resulting from the failure of the tenant to carry out their business on the premises. Background The landlord, Highway Properties Ltd., leased a retail location in its shopping centre to the tenant, Kelly Douglas and Co. Ltd., to be used for grocery store and super market . The lease was agreed to on August 19, 1960, and was to take effect for a term of fifteen years from October 1, 1960. The landlord ... Highway Properties v. Kelly, Douglas & Co. Recent Developments in Harvey M. Haber, ed, Shopping Centre ..., in North Bay T.V. and Audio Ltd. v Nova Electronics Ltd. Et Al. ref 1983 , 4 DLR 4th 88 Ont ... responsible as there was no loss suffered by the landlord. See, for example, Toronto Housing Co. v Postal Promotions Ltd. ref 1981 , 128 DLR 3d 51 Ont. HCJ , aff d 140 DLR 3d 117 Ont CA ref References .... In Veysoglu v O Keefe and Goudie ref 1989 , 81 Nfld & PEIR 317 Nfld SC TD ref , the court held ... in Langley Crossing Shopping Centre v North West Produce ref 1998 , 20 RPR 3d 112 BCSC ref , held that separate ... more details
in Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co 1951 2 KB 164. Subsequent developments Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co 1970 AC 1004, Lord Reid remarked, blockquote In later years there has been a steady trend towards ... to a proximate third party. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd 1995 2 AC 145 This case concerned the near ... in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltdv Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd 1986 , in which it was held that there is nothing ...Infobox Court Case name Hedley Byrne v Heller court House of Lords image date filed date decided 28 May 1963 full name citations 1964 AC 465, 1963 2 All ER 575, 1963 3 WLR 101, 1963 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL 1963 4.html UKHL 4 judges James Reid, Baron Reid Lord Reid , Lord Morris of Borth Y Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Devlin and Lord Pearce prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts Keywords negligent misrepresentation, assumption of responsibility Hedley Byrne & CoLtdv Heller & Partners Ltd 1964 AC 465 is an English tort law case on pure economic loss in English law pure economic loss , resulting from a negligent misrepresentation . Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care in English law duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, ref See Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co 1951 2 KB 164 ref with the only remedy for such losses ... were a firm of advertising agents. A customer, Easipower Ltd, put in a large order. Hedley Byrne ..., National Provincial Bank , to get a report from Easipower s bank, Heller & Partners Ltd., who replied ... v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 may be regarded as a milestone, and the well known passage in Lord Atkin ... to apply principles analogous to those stated by Lord Atkin cf. Hedley Byrne v. Heller 1964 A.C. 465 . blockquote Smith v Eric S Bush 1989 1 AC 831 The defendants were Quantity surveyor surveyor s for a Mortgage .... Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990 2 AC 605 This concerned an auditor Dickman who had negligently ... incurred. White v Jones 1995 2 AC 207 In this case, which was only carried by a 3 2 majority ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Macaura v Northern Assurance CoLtd court House of Lords date decided full name citations 1925 AC 619 judges Lord Sumner, Lord Buckmaster, Wrenbury, Atkinson and Phillimore concurred. prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Macaura v Northern Assurance CoLtd 1925 AC 619 appeared before the House Of Lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate veil . Unusually, the request to do so was in this case made by the corporation s owner. Facts Mr Macaura owned the Killymoon estate in County Tyrone , Northern Ireland . He sold the timber there to Irish Canadian Sawmills Ltd for 42,000 fully paid up 1 shares, making him the whole owner with nominees . Mr Macaura was also an unsecured creditor for 19,000. He got insurance policies but in his own name, not the company s with Northern Assurance covering for fire . Two weeks later, there was a fire. Northern Assurance refused to pay up because the timber was owned by the company, and that because the company was a separate legal entity, it did not need to pay Mr Macaura any money. Judgment The House of Lords held insurers were not liable on the contract, since the timber that perished in the fire did not belong to Mr Macaura, who held the insurance policy. Lord Sumner said, Cquote It was not his. It belonged to the Irish Canadian Sawmills Ltd, of Skibbereen, co Cork He stood in no legal or equitable relation to the timber at all His relation was to the company, not to its goods, and after the fire he was directly prejudiced by the paucity of the company s assets, not by the fire Lord Buckmaster, Wrenbury, Atkinson and Phillimore concurred. See also Kosmopoulos v Constitution Insurance Co of Canada 1987 http www.canlii.org en ca scc doc 1987 1987canlii75 1987canlii75.html 1 SCR 2 Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd JJ Harison Properties Ltdv Harrison 2001 EWCA Civ .... Lee v Lee s Air Farming 1961 AC 12 Notes Reflist UK law Category English tort case ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Anderson s Pty LtdvVictoria court High Court of Australia image Australia coa.png date decided 17 December 1964 full name Anderson s Pty LtdvVictoria citations http www.austlii.edu.au au cases cth high ct 111clr353.html 1964 111 CLR 353 judges Garfield Barwick Barwick CJ, Edward McTiernan McTiernan , Frank Kitto Kitto , Alan Taylor jurist Taylor , Douglas Menzies Menzies and Victor Windeyer Windeyer JJ prior actions none subsequent actions none opinions Anderson s Pty LtdvVictoria 1964 111 Commonwealth Law Reports CLR 353 is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with Section 90 of the Australian Constitution section 90 of the Constitution of Australia Australian Constitution . In this case, following on from such cases as Dennis Hotels Pty LtdvVictoria , Barwick CJ accepted the broad approach to the definition of an excise, but rejected the formalistic criterion of liability approach for determining if the excise falls at the relevant step. He adopted the substance over form approach, or the substantial effects doctrine, in that there are many factors to be considered, for example, the indirectness of the tax, its effect on the cost of goods and its proximity to the production or distribution of the goods. See also Section 90 of the Australian Constitution Australian constitutional law References George Winterton Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law commentary and materials , 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney. External links http www.austlii.edu.au au cases cth high ct 111clr353.html Full text of the decision Category High Court of Australia cases Category 1964 in Australia Category Australian constitutional law Category Excise in the Australian Constitution cases Category 1964 in case law ... more details
Young v. Bristol Aeroplane CoLtd 1944 KB 718 CA was an England English court case that established that the Court of Appeal of England and Wales Court of Appeal is bound to follow its own decisions and those of courts of co ordinate jurisdiction, except in the following cases the court is entitled and bound to decide which of two previous conflicting decisions of its own it will follow the court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which cannot stand with a decision of the Judicial functions of the House of Lords House of Lords the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if the decision was given per incuriam , e.g., where a statute or a rule having statutory effect which would have affected the decision was not brought to the attention of the earlier court. However, there are a few other possible exceptions that may be worth considering. These are Citation needed date February 2010 Decisions on interlocutory appeals, for example, decisions taken by a Court of Appeal of only two judges. Where the decision from the House of Lords was made on an unwarranted assumption. That the decision was made before the Human Rights Act 1998 Human Rights Act 1998, and so may be contrary to it. References http www.justis.com titles iclr s4420113.html Young v. Bristol Aeroplane CoLtd Category 1944 in England Category English case law Category Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases Category 1944 in case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Gilford Motor CoLtdv Horne court Court of Appeal date decided full name citations 1933 Ch 935 judges Lord Hanworth, MR Lawrence LJ and Romer LJ prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Fraud, lifting the veil Gilford Motor CoLtdv Horne 1933 Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud. Facts Mr EB Horne was formerly a managing director of the Gilford Motor CoLtd. His employment contract stipulated clause 9 not to solicit customers of the company if he were to leave employment of Gilford Motor Co. Mr. Horne was fired, thereafter he set up his own business and undercut Gilford Motor Co s prices. He received legal advice saying that he was probably acting in breach of contract. So he set up a company, JM Horne & CoLtd, in which his wife and a friend called Mr Howard were the sole shareholders and directors. They took over Horne s business and continued it. Mr. Horne sent out fliers saying, Cquote Spares and service for all models of Gilford vehicles. 170 Hornsey Lane, Highgate , N. 6. Opposite Crouch End Lane... No connection with any other firm. The company had no such agreement with Gilford Motor about not competing, however Gilford Motor brought an action alleging that the company was used as an instrument of fraud to conceal Mr Horne s illegitimate actions. Judgment High Court Farwell J held that the covenant that Mr Horne would not compete was broken. I cannot help feeling quite convinced that at any rate one of the reasons for the creation of that company was the fear of Mr Horne that he might commit breaches of the covenant in carrying on the business But because the covenant was too wide and against public policy restraint of trade? he refused ... would object to. Lawrence LJ and Romer LJ concurred. See also Clist personality Jones v Lipman Notes ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Torquay Hotel CoLtdv Cousins court Court of Appeal of England and Wales image ... Hotel CoLtdv Cousins 1969 2 Ch 106 http www.bailii.org cgi bin markup.cgi?doc ew cases EWCA Civ 1968 ... too far when I said in Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltdv Gardner 1968 2 Q.B. 762, 782 that there was no difference between direct and indirect interference. On reading once again Thomson DC & CoLtdv ... by section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 see Thomson DC & CoLtdv Deakin 1952 ... without unlawful actions or without a contractual breach. ref see also now, OBG Ltdv Allan 2007 ... ref Facts Torquay Hotel CoLtd had a contract for the supply of oil from Esso Petroleum CoLtd. It contained .... It is owned by the plaintiffs, the Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. The managing director is Mr. Chapman. It gets all its fuel oil by contract from the Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. Esso . The Transport and General ... think, clearly a trade dispute see Beetham v Trinidad Cement Ltd 1960 A.C. 132 , and, none the less ... they themselves had been the mean to use Lord Coke s language see New Zealand Shipping CoLtd ... and applied by a strong board of the Privy Council in Jasperson v Dominion Tobacco Co. 1923 A.C. ... that causing any breach. That was a point left open by Lord Reid in Stratford JT & Son Ltdv Lindley ... with it see Emerald Construction Cov Lowthian 1966 1 W.L.R. 691. Third, the interference must ... was intended to over rule the Taff Vale case Taff Vale Railway Cov The Amalgamated Society ... LJJ, in Ware and De Freville Ltdv Motor Trade Association 1921 3 KB 40, 75, 92 and hold that the section ... also UK labour law DHN Food Distributors Ltdv Tower Hamlets London Borough Council 1976 1 WLR 852 ... see Tarleton v McGawley 1793 1 Peake 270 or conspiracy to injure. The House of Lords has subsequently ..., he found a firm in Cheshire, called Alternative Fuels Ltd., who got oil from various sources, and whose ..., the plaintiffs must show that the defendants are proposing to do something unlawful. Many grounds ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Mogul Steamship CoLtdv McGregor, Gow & Co court House of Lords image Liverpool Docks.JPG date decided full name citations 1892 AC 25 judges Lord Halsbury LC, Lord Watson, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Bramwell, Lord Morris, Lord Field, Lord Hannen prior actions 1889 23 QBD 598, 1888 LR 21 QBD 544 subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Conspiracy to injure , economic tort Mogul Steamship CoLtdv McGregor, Gow & Co 1892 AC 25 is an English tort law case concerning the economic tort of conspiracy to injure . A product of its time, the courts adhered to a laissez faire doctrine allowing firms to form a cartel, which would now be seen as contrary to the Competition Act 1998 . Facts A group of ship owners formed an association to raise their profits. The association agreed to limit the number of ships sent by the association to different ports, to give a 5 rebate on freights to all shippers of stock who dealt only with members, and that agents of members would be prohibited from dealing with anyone in the association if they did not deal exclusively with people in the association. If any member wished to withdraw, they would have to give notice. Mogul Steamship CoLtd had been excluded. When it sent ships to the loading port to pick up cargo, the association sent more ships and underbid Mogul Steamship CoLtd. The association also threatened to dismiss agents or withdraw rebates from anyone who dealt with Mogul Steamship CoLtd. Mogul Steamship CoLtd alleged there was a conspiracy to injure its economic interests and sued for compensation. Judgment The House of Lords, affirming the Court of Appeal s decision, ref 1889 23 QBD 598, Lord Esher MR dissenting ... means had been employed, Mogul Steamship CoLtd had no cause of action. Lord Bramwell s judgment .... See also English tort law Vegelahn v. Guntner , 167 Mass. 92 1896 Loewe v. Lawlor , 208 U.S. 274 ... of the European Court of Justice 21 September 1999. Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds ... more details
Infobox Court Case name C&P Haulage CoLtdv Middleton court Court of Appeal image date filed date decided full name citations 1983 EWCA Civ 5 1983 1 WLR 1461, 1983 3 All ER 94 judges Ackner LJ prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts Keywords C&P Haulage CoLtdv Middleton 1983 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWCA Civ 1983 5.html EWCA Civ 5 is an English contract law case, concerning damages for costs incurred by a claimant related to a defendant s breach of contract. Facts George Middleton had a licence to occupy premises for six months a time, renewable. He used it for his car repairs business. He improved the property, even though the contract stated fixtures were not to be removed at the end of the licence. C&P Haulage CoLtd ejected him in breach of contract. Mr Middleton argued he should be entitled to damages for the cost of the improvements he made. Judgment Ackner LJ held that Middleton s loss did not flow from the breach of contract, but him going and doing the repairs when he was not meant to. So no recovery of reliance loss was available, where it would allow Middleton to escape a bad bargain or reverse the contractual allocation of risk. Cquote The case which I have found of assistance and I am grateful to counsel for their research is a case in the British Columbia Supreme Court Bowlay Logging Ltdv. Domtar Ltd 1978 4 W.W.R. 105 . Berger J., in a very careful and detailed judgment, goes through various English and American authorities and refers to the leading textbook writers, and I will only quote a small part of his judgment. At the bottom of p. 115 ... Berger J., at p. 116, then refers to L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co. 1949 178 F. 2d 182 ... these expenses. See also Clist remedies English contract law Johnson v Agnew 1980 AC 367 Habton Farms v Nimmo 2003 EWCA Civ 68, 2004 QB 1, 2003 3 WLR 633 The Golden Victory or Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha 2007 UKHL 12 Notes reflist 2 References Category English contract ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Esso Petroleum CoLtdv Mardon court Court of Appeal image Esso Kanata.jpg date decided full name citations 1976 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWCA Civ 1976 4.html EWCA Civ 4 , 1976 QB 801 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Misrepresentation , expertise Esso Petroleum CoLtdv Mardon 1976 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWCA Civ 1976 4.html EWCA Civ 4 is an English contract law case, concerning Misrepresentation in English law misrepresentation . It holds that the divide between a statement of opinion and fact becomes more factual if one holds himself out as having expert knowledge. Facts Mr Mardon was buying a petrol station, franchised by Esso Petroleum CoLtd. Esso told him they had estimated that the throughput of a petrol station in Eastbank Street, Southport , would be 200,000 gallons a year. However the local council made a decision on planning permission so there would be no direct access from the main street. That meant fewer customers. But Esso still told Mr Mardon the estimated throughput was 200,000. Mr Mardon bought the petrol station and business did not go well. From 1964, Mr Mardon negotiated a lower rent with Esso. He still put money in but lost a lot. Esso then brought an action for possession against Mr Mardon. He counterclaimed for damages of Esso s breach of warranty or negligence under Hedley Byrne . Lawson ... care which is owed by a master to his servant, or vice versa . ref Lister v Romford Ice Cold Storage CoLtd 1957 AC 555, 587 per Lord Radcliffe ref There is a duty to negotiate with care, Cquote if a man ... of warranty. Lord Denning MR distinguished Bisset v Wilkinson because each party was equally ..., relying on Clark v Kirby Smith ref 1964 Ch 506 ref , when Plowman J said a negligent solicitor was not liable in tort, only contract, based on Sir Wilfrid Greene MR in Groom v Crocker . ref ... case he is under one and the same duty to use reasonable care see Cassidy v Ministry of Health ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Addis v Gramophone CoLtd court House of Lords image Sled dog and gramophone ... Full text of judgment keywords Wrongful dismissal Addis v Gramophone CoLtd 1909 http www.bailii.org ... v Jones 25 QBD 107 not as a mere personal slight or affront. So in Addis v Gramophone CoLtd the plaintiff ... V Gramophone CoLtd ... of wanton injury or contumely and see the observations of Willes J. in Bell v Midland Ry Co ... law, illustrated by Farley v Skinner ref 2000 UKHL 49 ref and Johnson v Unisys Ltd . ref 2003 1 AC 518 ref See also Contract law cases Hamlin v Great Northern Railway Co 1856 1 H&N 408, 411, Pollock .... Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd 1973 1 All ER 71 Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd 1975 3 All ER 92 Heywood ... v James & Charles Dodd A Firm 1990 2 All ER 815 Ruxley Electronics Ltdv Forsyth 1995 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL 1995 8.html UKHL 8 Farley v Skinner 2000 UKHL 49 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co 2002 ... All ER 1, 1997 IRLR 462, 1997 3 WLR 95, 1997 ICR 606 Johnson v Unisys Ltd 1998 EWCA Civ 1913, 2001 http ... a development of the law in respect of the measure of damages. In Marzetti v Williams ref 1830 1 B&Ad ... a draft refused payment for so small a sum. In Rolin v Steward ref 1854 14 CB 595 ref the damages .... Emmens v Elderton ref 1853 4 HLC 624 ref was a case of wrongful dismissal of a solicitor whom ... than a year. In French v Brookes ref 1830 6 Bing 354 ref the engagement was for three years with a right ... v Jones ref 1890 25 QBD 107 ref an apprentice who was engaged at weekly wages was summarily dismissed ... for breach of promise to marry. Maw v Jones is contrary to established principles and was wrongly ... as authority to the contrary Maw v Jones . I doubt if the learned Lord Chief Justice so intended ... dismissal, in effect damages for defamation, for it amounts to that, except the case of Maw v Jones ... of Hartley v Harman , ref 1840 11 Ad&E 798, 800 ref that the measure of damages for the improper ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
