Untitled

Question	Answer
Donoghue v Stevenson	A man bought some ginger beer from a cafe and gave it to his friend. The bottle was contaminated, and contained the remains of a decomposed snail. She fell ill, but was unable to sue the cafe as she hadn't bought the beer. Instead, she sued the manufacturers in negligence. The judge made an obiter statement that became the main basis for the modern law of negligence.
R v R	Supreme Court followed the same reasoning as the Court of Appeal in deciding that a man could be guilty of raping his wife.
Shuey v US	An American case where the court said that where the notice that withdrew rewards on wanted posters were as prominent as the notice that gave the reward, the reward could be withdrawn.
The Wagon Mound	A ship spilled oil that was accidentally set alight. The Privy Council held that the ship owners were not liable as they could not have foreseen the consequence.
London Street Tramways	The case in which it was established that the Supreme Court could not overrule itself.
Fisher v Bell	Illegal to 'offer to sell' flick knife. In shop window='invitation to treat'. Literal rule used - not guilty.
LNER v Berriman	Compensation for widow if husband died 'relaying or repairing' tracks. Oiling='maintaining'. Literal rule used - no compensation given.
Mesure v Mesure	'5 years continuous treatment' grounds for divorce. Small break in treatment. Literal rule used - no divorce.
R v Sigsworth	Son murders mother. Literally, he should receive compensation. Absurd outcome, so wide golden rule used. No compensation.
Conway v Rimmer	The first case in which the Practice Statement was used
Adler v George	Man obstructs army officer in prohibited place. Not technically 'in vicinity', so literally would not be guilty. Absurd. Narrow golden rule used to interpret 'in vicinity' as including in the place - guilty.
R v Allen	Man charged with bigamy points out that it isn't possible to legally be 'married' twice, literally. Narrow golden rule used to interpret 'married' as 'going through a ceremony of marriage' - guilty.
Smith v Hughes	Illegal for prostitutes to solicit business in the street. A prostitute taps on the window. Not technically street. Mischief: harassing people in the street. Mischief being carried out. Guilty.
Gardiner v Sevenoaks	Legally required to have safety checks on premises. Man stores chemicals in cave. Cave not technically 'premises'. Mischief: unsafe storage. Mischief being carried out. Had to undergo safety checks.
Addie v Dumbreck (links to Herrington v BRB)	The Supreme Court decided that an occupier of land was not liable in negligence to a child who trespassed onto the land and was injured.
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS	Nurses carried out abortions. Legal for doctors to do so. Mischief: unsafe abortions. Mischief not being carried out. Nurses not guilty.
Herrington v BRB (links to Addie v Dumbreck)	Addie was overruled because social and physical conditions had changed. It was decided that the occupier of land was liable if they had not done enough to prevent child trespassers.
Jones v Wrotham	Circumstances for use of mischief rule established: 1. If it is possible to determine from the Act the precise mischief that the Act was to remedy; 2. If it was an accident that the mischief had not been resolved by the Act’s literal meaning; and 3. If it is possible to say with certainty what additional words would have been inserted by draftsmen and approved by Parliament.
Jones v Tower Boot Co.	Victim of racist bullying at work wants to sue. Employer liable is bullying took place 'in course of employment'. Two interpretations: Literal-'whilst doing what you are paid to do'; Purposive-'whilst at work'. Purposive used.
Anderton v Ryan (links to R v Shivpuri)	The Supreme Court decided that where someone thought they had purchased stolen goods, but hadn't because the goods were not stolen, they could not be guilty.
R v Bentham	Covered fingers with jacket as pretend gun. Not technically 'in possession' of fake firearm - not possible to 'possess' fingers. Purposive approach used-guilty.
R v Shivpuri (links to Anderton v Ryan)	A man thought he was bringing drugs into the country, but the drugs were fake. The House of Lords overruled their previous decision in Anderton to make him guilty.
Ejusdem Generis	'Of the same kind' - where there is a list of words followed by a general word, the general word is limited to the same kind of items as the specific words.
Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse	An offence to bet in a 'house, office, room or other place'. A man was betting at Tattersall's ring, which is outside, Decided that 'other places' included only indoor places, so he was not guilty.
Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius	'naming one thing implies exclusion of all others' - where there is a list of words not followed by a general word, the Act applies only to the words in the list.
R v G	Two children set fire to some newspapers under a bin. It spread. The judge followed R v Caldwell, and they were found guilty. On the second appeal at the Supreme Court, the decision in Caldwell was overruled as it would cause an injustice.
R v Inhabitants of Sedgely	Taxes on 'lands, houses and coalmines'. Held that it did not apply to limestone mines as these were not explicitly stated.
Noscitur a Sociis	'a word is known by it's friends' - a word should be interpreted in the light of the words around it.
Young v Bristol Aeroplane	Established the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal may overrule previous Court of Appeal decisions: -when there are 2 conflicting CoA decisions -where a previous CoA decision conflicts with a later Supreme Court decision -when a previous CoA decision was made per incuriam (without care)
Pengelly v Bell Punch	All ‘floors, steps, stairs, passageways and gangways’ should be kept clear. Held that this did not apply to the parts of the floor that were used for storage, because all the other terms referred to parts of the floor that were used to work on.
Williams v Fawcett	The Court of Appeal said that the previous CoA case had misunderstood the rules for sending someone to prison for contempt of court and so refused to follow the old case.
Davis v Johnson (extrinsic aids)	Lord Denning: ‘… [not to use Hansard] would be to grope around in the dark for the meaning of an Act without switching the light on’.
Pepper v Hart	Established criteria for use of Hansard: -where the words of the Act are ambiguous or obscure or lead to an absurdity, -where there is a clear statement from the minister promoting the Act
R v Gould	A man remarried in honest, mistaken belief that his previous marriage had been dissolved. The Court of Appeal (criminal division) overruled a previous decision even though it did not fulfill any of the criteria set out in Young, because to follow it would lead to injustice. The criminal division does not follow stare decisis as rigidly.
R v Deegan	Confusion over whether a folding knife is a 'bladed article'. No clear statement in Hansard, do it could not be used.
DPP v Bull	Confusion as to whether a male prostitute was a 'common prostitute'. Oxford English Dictionary, The Interpretation, Hansard and a Committee report were looked at. The committee report showed that the committee were only concerned with female prostitutes.
Re A	The decision had to be made whether it was lawful to separate conjoined twins if it would mean one would inevitably die. Original precedent.
Hunter and others v Canary Wharf Ltd.	The decision had to be made whether the interference with television reception by a large building was capable of constituting an actionable private nuisance. Original precedent.
Hyam v DPP (links to R v Maloney)	Mrs Hyam started a fire in order to scare the occupants of the house but not to kill them. They died. The Supreme Court said she was guilty of murder but were not clear why.
Hill v Baxter	A man fell asleep whilst driving and crashed. The Judge held that he was at fault for not stopping when drowsy. He gave the example of bees flying in through the window and stinging the driver, causing him to crash, as an example of when the driver would not be at fault. This was an obiter statement.
Balfour v Balfour (links to Merritt v Merritt)	The husband moved away from his wife and agreed to pay her a certain amount of money each month. He stopped paying this, and she tried to sue him. The court held that contracts made when happily married were not legally binding, so she did not succeed.
Merritt v Merritt (links to Balfour v Balfour)	A husband separated from his wife to live with another woman. He agreed to pay her a certain amount each month, but stopped paying this. The wife sued him. The court held that the previous decision made in Balfour did not apply to this case as the couple were not happily married at the time.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by penelocoppervine almost 11 years ago