Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Commonwealth - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 397 cases, and was prepared on 14 July 2015.

 
Mount Isa Mines Ltd -v- Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383
1970

Windeyer J
Commonwealth, Negligence
The court considered how progress is made in developing the law of liability for damages for psychiatric injury, saying "The field is one in which the common law is still in course of development. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. Analogies in other courts, and persuasive precedents as well as authoritative pronouncements, must be regarded."
1 Citers


 
Public Prosecutor -v- Yuvaraj [1970] AC 913; [1970] 2 WLR 226
1970
PC
Diplock L
Crime, Commonwealth
Diplock L said: "Corruption in the public service is a grave social event which is difficult to detect, for those who take part in it will be at pains to cover their tracks." and "In criminal proceedings, by an exception to the general rule founded upon considerations of public policy. If the consequence of a finding that a particular fact is proved will be the conviction of the defendant the degree of probability must be so high as to exclude any reasonable doubt that that fact exists. Generally speaking, no onus lies upon a defendant in criminal proceedings to prove or disprove any fact: it is sufficient for his acquittal if any of the facts which, if they existed, would constitute the offence with which he is charged, are "not proved." But exceptionally, as in the present case, an enactment creating an offence expressly provides that if other facts are proved, a particular fact, the existence of which is a necessary factual ingredient of the offence, shall be presumed or deemed to exist." . . "unless the contrary is proved." In such a case the consequence of finding that that particular fact is "disproved" will be an acquittal, whereas the absence of such a finding will have the consequence of a conviction."
1 Citers


 
James -v- The Queen (1970) 55 Cr App Rep 299
1970
PC

Crime, Commonwealth

1 Citers


 
Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd -v- York Products Pty Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 1262
1970
PC
Lord Pearson
Agency, Commonwealth
(New South Wales - Australia) The defendants were stevedores who had lost two cases of clocks that they had received as sub-bailees of the shipowners, who in turn owed a duty to deliver them to the plaintiffs under the bills of lading. Held: The defendants were liable. They: "took upon themselves an obligation to the plaintiffs to exercise due care for the safety of the goods, although there was no contractual relation or attornment between the defendants and the plaintiffs." A sub-bailee had only voluntarily taken into his possession the goods of another if he has sufficient notice that a person other than the 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.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Jayasena -v- The Queen [1970] AC 618
1970
PC
Lord Devlin
Crime, Commonwealth
“Their Lordships do not understand what is meant by the phrase 'evidential burden of proof’. They understand, of course, that in trial by jury a party may be required to adduce some evidence in support of his case, whether on the general issue or on a particular issue, before that issue is left to the jury. How much evidence has to be adduced depends upon the nature of the requirement. It may be such evidence as, if believed and left uncontradicted and unexplained, could be accepted by the jury as proof. It is doubtless permissible to describe the requirement as a burden, and it may be convenient to call it an evidential burden. But it is confusing to call it a burden of proof. Further, it is misleading to call it a burden of proof, whether described as legal or evidential or by any other adjective, when it can be discharged by the production of evidence that falls short of proof. The essence of the appellant’s case is that he has not got to provide any sort of proof that he was acting in private defence. So it is a misnomer to call whatever it is that he has to provide a burden of proof ….”
1 Citers


 
Hunter Douglas Australia Pty -v- Perma Blinds (1970) 44 ALJR 257
1970

Windeyer J
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice
(Australia) The court considered the meaning of the word 'deemed' in a statute. Windeyer J said: "the verb ‘deem’, or derivatives of it, can be used in statutory definitions to extend the denotation of the defined term to things it would not in ordinary parlance denote. This is often a convenient device for reducing the verbiage of an enactment. But that the word can be used in that way and for that purpose does not mean that whenever it is used it has that effect. After all, to deem means simply to judge, or reach a conclusion about something … the words ‘deem’ and ‘deemed’ when used in a statute thus simply state the effect or meaning which some matter or thing has – the way in which it is to be adjudged. This need not import artificiality or fiction. It may simply be the statement of an indisputable conclusion, as if for example one were to say that on attaining the age of twenty-one years a man is deemed to be of full age and no longer an infant. Hundreds of examples of this usage of the word appear in the statute books."
1 Citers


 
Donnelly -v- Jackman [1970] CLY 2218; [1970] NZLR 980; (1970) 1 WLR 562
1970

Turner J
Police, Crime, Commonwealth
Turner J considered the law of attempt: "He who sets out to commit a crime may in the event fall short of the complete commission of that crime for any one of a number of reasons. First, he may, of course, simply change his mind before committing any act sufficiently overt to amount to an attempt. Second, he may change his mind, but too late to deny that he had got so far as an attempt. Third, he may be prevented by some outside agency from doing some act necessary to complete commission of the crime—as when a police officer interrupts him while he is endeavouring to force the window open, but before he has broken into the premises. Fourth, he may suffer no such outside interference, but may fail to complete the commission of the crime through ineptitude, inefficiency or insufficient means. The jemmy which he has brought with him may not be strong enough to force the window open. Fifth, he may find that what he is proposing to do is after all impossible—not because of insufficiency of means, but because it is for some reason physically not possible, whatever means be adopted. He who walks into a room intending to steal, say, a specific diamond ring, and finds that the ring is no longer there, but has been removed by the owner to the bank, is thus prevented from committing the crime which he intended, and which, but for the supervening physical impossibility imposed by events he would have committed. Sixth, he may without interruption efficiently do every act which he set out to do, but may be saved from criminal liability by the fact that what he has done, contrary to his own belief at the time, does not after all amount in law to a crime."
1 Citers



 
 Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd -v- Attorney-General of Hong Kong; PC 1970 - [1970] AC 1136; [1970] UKPC 12

 
 Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd -v- Attorney-General of Hong Kong; PC 1970 - [1970] AC 1136; [1970] UKPC 12
 
Regona -v- Sperotto & Salvietti [1970] 1 NSWR 502
1970

Herron CJ
Commonwealth, Crime
(Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales) The court considered the mental element in the crime of rape: "In all crimes at common law a guilty intention is a necessary element and with the crime of rape this intention is to have carnal knowledge of the woman without her consent. In order to convict the accused of the crime of rape and, subject to what is hereinafter said, to establish this intention on his part the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that when the accused had intercourse with the woman either (i) he was aware that she had not consented, or (ii) he realized that she might not be consenting and was determined to have intercourse with her whether she was consenting or not. The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime ". And
"Although the fact of the act of intercourse may be admitted by the accused or proved beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury, the accused may negative any intention on his part to have intercourse with the woman regardless of her consent if he holds an honest belief on reasonable grounds in the existence of circumstances which, if true, would make his act of intercourse with the woman an innocent one (Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, per Lord Reid). This involves these three concepts, firstly, that he in fact held the belief that the woman was consenting to the act of intercourse, secondly, that he was mistaken in that belief and, thirdly, that he can point objectively to circumstances which provided him with reasonable grounds for his mistake.
It then becomes necesary for the Crown as part of the ultimate onus which rests upon it to negative the existence of such belief, and this beyond reasonable doubt. This the Crown may do by reference to all the material adduced at the trial which tends to show that the belief asserted by the accused was not genuinely held by him or that the grounds upon which he relies for the foundation of his belief are, when examined in the light of all the circumstances, not a reasonable basis for the mistake which he claims to have made."
1 Citers


 
News Media Ownership v Finlay [1970] NZLR 1089
1970

North P
Constitutional, Commonwealth, Media, Defamation
(New Zealand Court of Appeal ) The plaintiff, a Member of Parliament, brought libel proceedings against a newspaper in respect of an article appearing in the newspaper which alleged that the plaintiff had been acting improperly and for purposes of personal profit in making statements in the House. North P said: "Mr McKay was right when he submitted that while violence of language is not in itself enough to take away privilege even though it may provide evidence of malice, yet privilege is lost if the reply becomes a counter attack raising allegations against the plaintiff which are unrelated or insufficiently related to the attack he made on the defendant. In other words he cannot claim the protection of privilege if he decides to bring fresh accusations against his adversary." and, as to a contention that the words complained of were not defamatory:
"In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention, for surely it is plain enough that it is harmful to the trading reputation of a newspaper company to allege that it conducts its business without regard for the public interest, its principal concern being merely with the making of profits."
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Donnelly [1970] NZLR 980
1970


Commonwealth, Crime
(New Zealand)
1 Citers


 
Dr. Natarajan Sithamparanathan -v- Ramanathan Mathuranayagam (Ceylon) [1970] UKPC 2
14 Jan 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Enmore Estates Limited -v- Ramkhellawan Darsan (Guyana) [1970] UKPC 1
14 Jan 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Stanislaus D'Aguiar -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Guyana) [1970] UKPC 3
19 Jan 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chung Khiaw Bank Limited -v- United Overseas Bank Limited (Singapore) [1970] UKPC 4
19 Jan 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Colombo Apothecaries Company Ltd -v- E.A. Wijesooriya and Others (Ceylon) [1970] UKPC 5
26 Jan 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Harry Rambarran -v- Gurrucharran; PC 26-Jan-1970 - [1970] UKPC 6
 
Agnes Butler (Reasons) -v- Plantation Versailles and Schoon Ord Estate Limited (Guyana) [1970] UKPC 7
26 Jan 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
N. Rengasamy Pillai -v- The Comptroller of Income Tax (Malaysia) [1970] UKPC 8
2 Mar 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chang Lan Sheng -v- The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1970] UKPC 10
7 Apr 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Abdoulie Drammeh -v- Joyce Drammeh (Gambia) [1970] UKPC 9
7 Apr 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Montagu Park Racing Association Limited -v- The Honourable Dr. Raymond Wison Sawyer (And Cross -Appeal Consolidated) [1970] UKPC 11
13 Apr 1970
PC

Commonwealth
(Bahamas)
[ Bailii ]
 
The Woodend (K. V. Ceylon) Rubber and Tea Company Limited -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Ceylon) [1970] UKPC 13
29 Apr 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Henry James Sloan -v- General Medical Council (Jcpc) [1970] UKPC 14
30 Apr 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Her Majesty's Attorney-General for Dominica -v- Howell Donald Shillingford [1970] UKPC 15
16 Jun 1970
PC

Commonwealth
(Dominica)
[ Bailii ]
 
J. S. P. Molefi -v- The Principal Legal Adviser and Others (Lesotho) [1970] UKPC 16
17 Jun 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General for Fiji -v- Hari Pratap S/O Ram Kissun (Fiji) [1970] UKPC 17
25 Jun 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. Limited -v- York Products Pty. Limited (New South Wales) [1970] UKPC 18
1 Jul 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Leong Bee and Company -v- Ling Nam Rubber Works (Malaysia) [1970] UKPC 19
6 Jul 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Don Leonard Jayawardane -v- V. P. Silva and Others (Ceylon) [1970] UKPC 20
13 Jul 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Herman Peter Tarnesby -v- General Medical Council (Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1970] UKPC 21
20 Jul 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Parviz Faridian -v- General Medical Council (Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1970] UKPC 22
22 Jul 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue -v- Associated Motorists Petrol Company Limited (New Zealand) [1970] UKPC 24
21 Oct 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Owen Thomas Mangin -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (New Zealand) [1970] UKPC 23
21 Oct 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue -v- Europa Oil (N.Z.) Limited (New Zealand) [1970] UKPC 25
21 Oct 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dolores Hay Mcclelland -v- The Commissioner of Taxation of The Commonwealth of Australia (Australia) [1970] UKPC 26
2 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Eric James -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1970] UKPC 27
2 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dennis Hall -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1970] UKPC 28
3 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Paul Zammit-Hammet -v- General Medical Council (Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1970] UKPC 29
5 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mutual Life & Citizens' Assurance Co -v- Evatt [1970] UKPC 1
16 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Mutual Life and Citizen'S Assurance Company Limited -v- Clive Raleigh Evatt (Australia) [1970] UKPC 30
16 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Palmer -v- Simmonds [1970] UKPC 2
23 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Derrick Irving -v- The Queen [1970] UKPC 34
23 Nov 1970
PC

Commonwealth
(Jamaica)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Sigismund Palmer -v- The Queen; PC 23-Nov-1970 - [1970] UKPC 31; [1971] 1 All ER 1077; [1971] AC 814; [1971] 2 WLR 831; (1971) 55 Cr App R 223
 
Edgar Mahinda Fernando -v- The Queen and -v- Lionel Mendis Karunaratne -v- The Queen [1970] UKPC 32
1 Dec 1970
PC

Commonwealth, Crime
(Ceylon)
[ Bailii ]
 
Collector of Land Revenue V. A. K. A. C. T. V. -v- Collector of Land Revenue -v- Ong Thye Eng (Malaysia) [1970] UKPC 35
15 Dec 1970
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
North Sydney Printing Property Ltd -v- Sobemo Investment Co. Ltd [1971] NSWLR 150
1971

Hope J
Commonwealth, Land
(Supreme Court of New South Wales in Equity) A company sold part of its land, which abutted on to a street. The retained land had no access to a highway, but the company intended subsequently to sell it to the local authority as an addition to a contiguous car park owned by that authority. The proposed sale to the local authority went off, and the company was left with its retained land, which was landlocked. The company then sought a declaration that its retained land had a way of necessity over the land sold. The company contended that it was entitled to a way of necessity by virtue of public policy, and that the intention of the parties was irrelevant. The purchaser contended that public policy was irrelevant, and that the company was entitled to no right of way, since the intention of the parties was that the company should have no such right. Held: The claim failed. A way of necessity arises to give effect to an actual or presumed intention. On the facts the company's intention was the contrary: its intention was that the land retained should have no access over the land conveyed, but instead should have access over the car park.
1 Citers


 
The Queen -v- Ireland [1971-72] 126 CLR 321
1971

Barwick CJ
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ considered the circumstance where, in a criminal trial, a judge was asked to exclude evidence for unfairness: "Whenever such unlawfulness or unfairness appears, the judge has a discretion to reject the evidence. He must consider its exercise. In the exercise of it, the competing public requirements must be considered and weighed against each other. On the one hand there is the public need to bring to conviction those who commit criminal offences. On the other hand there is the public interest in the protection of the individual from unlawful and unfair treatment. Convictions obtained by the aid of unlawful or unfair acts may be obtained at too high a price. Hence the judicial discretion."
1 Citers


 
Esquire Nominees Ltd -v- Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 129 CLR 177
1971

Gibbs J
Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) The company had directors who lived on Norfolk Island, but also had close connections with an Australian firm of accountants (WBBC), which evolved and implemented a tax scheme for an Australian family. The company acted as Trustee of a Trust which was established as part of the scheme. The Norfolk Island directors did not take actions on their own initiative, but only at the instigation of WBBC. Held: The company was resident in Norfolk Island and not in Australia: "As I have already indicated, it is obvious that what the appellant did in relation to the Manolas Trust was done in the course of carrying out a scheme formulated in Australia and that Messrs WBBC not only communicated to the appellant particulars of the scheme but advised the appellant in detail of the manner in which it should be carried out. But if it be accepted that the appellant did what Messrs WBBC told it to do in the administration of the various Trusts, it does not follow that the control and management of the appellant lay with Messrs WBBC. That firm had no power to control the directors of the appellant in the exercise of their powers. … The firm had power to exert influence, and perhaps strong influence, on the appellant, but that is all. The directors in fact complied with the wishes of Messrs WBBC because they accepted that it was in the interests of the beneficiaries, having regard to the tax position, that they should give effect to the scheme. If, on the other hand, Messrs WBBC had instructed the directors to do something which they considered improper or inadvisable, I do not believe that they would have acted on the instruction. It was apparent that it was intended that the appellant should carry on its business of Trustee company on Norfolk Island. It was in my opinion managed and controlled there, none the less because the control was exercised in a manner which accorded with the wishes of the interests in Australia. The appellant was, in my opinion, a resident of Norfolk Island." (Supported on appeal)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Munnings -v- Hydro-Electric Commission (1971) 45 ALJR 378
1971


Commonwealth

1 Citers


 
Pemble -v- The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107
1971

Barwick CJ
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ: "Whatever course counsel may see fit to take, no doubt bona fide but for tactical reasons in what he considers the best interest of his client, the trial judge must be astute to secure for the accused a fair trial according to law. This involves, in my opinion, an adequate direction both as to the law and the possible use of the relevant facts upon any matter upon which the jury could in the circumstances of the case upon the material before them find or base a verdict in whole or in part . .
Here, counsel for the defence did not merely not rely on the matters now sought to be raised; he abandoned them and expressly confined the defence to the matters he did raise. However, in my opinion, this course did not relieve the trial judge of the duty to put to the jury with adequate assistance any matters on which the jury, upon the evidence, could find for the accused."
1 Citers



 
 Kirschbaum -v- 'Our Voices' Publishing Co; 1971 - [1971] 1 OR 737
 
Guiana Industrial & Commercial Investments Limited -v- The Commissioner for Inland Revenue (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 1
12 Jan 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Valuations -v- Jamaica Gypsum Limited (Jamaica) [1971] UKPC 2
12 Jan 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Distiller's Co (Biochemicals) Ltd -v- Thompson [1971] AC 458; [1971] UKPC 3; [1971] 1 All ER 694; [1971] 2 WLR 441
19 Jan 1971
PC
Lord Pearson, Lord Reid, Lord Morris, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan
Torts - Other, Jurisdiction, Commonwealth
(Australia) There had been a negligent failure in New South Wales to warn a pregnant woman of the dangers of taking the drug thalidimide. Held: When looking at jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a tort, the court should look to where in substance the tort was committed. Lord Pearson said: "It is not the right approach to say that, because there was no complete tort until the damage occurred, therefore the cause of action arose wherever the damage happened to occur. The right approach is, when the tort is complete, to look back over the series of events constituting it and ask the question: where in substance did this cause of action arise?"
and it was "manifestly just and reasonable that a defendant should have to answer for his wrongdoing in the country where he did the wrong".
New South Wales Common Law Procedure Act 1899 18(4)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co [1971] SCR 562; [1971] 17 DLR (3d) 710
1 Feb 1971

Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence and Laskin JJ
Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant
(Supreme Court of Canada) Landlord and tenant—Repudiation by tenant of lease of certain premises and its consequent abandonment of said premises — Possession taken by landlord with contemporaneous assertion of right to full damages according to loss calculable over unexpired term of lease—Remedies of landlord — Measure and range of damages.
Laskin J said: "It is no longer sensible to pretend that a commercial lease, such as the one before the court, is simply a conveyance and not also a contract. It is equally untenable to persist in denying resort to the full armoury of remedies ordinarily available to redress repudiation of covenants, merely because the covenants may be associated with an interest in land."
1 Citers

[ SCC ]
 
R. R. Chelliah Brothers -v- Employees Provident Fund Board (Malaysia) [1971] UKPC 4
8 Feb 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Argosy Company Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) -v- The Commissioner for Inland Revenue (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 5
8 Feb 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Francesca The Wife of Michele Aquilina -v- Doctor Vincenzo Dpasquale (Malta) [1971] UKPC 6
10 Feb 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Caruppiah Sandanam -v- Mohamed Ismail Mohamed Jamaldeen and Others (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 7
23 Feb 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bateman Television Limited (In Liquidation) and Bateman T.V. Hire (In Liquidation) -v- Coleridge Finance Company Limited (New Zealand) [1971] UKPC 8
23 Feb 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of Hong Kong -v- Pat Chiuk-Wah and Others (Hong Kong) [1971] UKPC 9
22 Mar 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Cheng Kum and Another -v- War Tat Bank Limited and Another (Singapore) [1971] UKPC 10
29 Mar 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
James Michael Marzouca -v- Atlantic & British Commercial Insurance Company Limited (Jamaica) [1971] UKPC 11
1 Apr 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gilbert Dalley -v- General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1971] UKPC 12
1 Apr 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rosaline Antigua -v- Issac Boxwill (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 14
3 May 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Guiana Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited -v- The Commissioner for Inland Revenue (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 13
3 May 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Olive Casey Jaundoo In Her Capacity As Executrix of The Estate of William Arnold Jaundoo -v- The Attorney General of Guyana [1971] UKPC 15
4 May 1971
PC

Commonwealth
Guyana
[ Bailii ]
 
Ramoo S/O Eruapan -v- Gan Soo Swee and Another (Malaysia At Singapore) [1971] UKPC 16
4 May 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Jupiter Cigarette & Tobacco Co. Limited -v- Dr. Hennedige Charles Henry Soysa and Other (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 17
24 May 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Sinhalse Film Industrial Corporation Limited -v- Herthmudiyanselage Chandrawaithie Madanayake and Others (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 18
24 May 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Richard Wordsworth Barker -v- General Medical Council (Reasons) [1971] UKPC 21
21 Jun 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
R. Sambasivam -v- The Public Services Commission and Another (Malaysia) [1971] UKPC 20
28 Jun 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bajaj Textiles Limited -v- Gian Singh & Company Limited (Malaysia At Singapore) [1971] UKPC 19
28 Jun 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ratten -v- The Queen; PC 1-Jul-1971 - [1972] 2 AC 378; [1971] UKPC 23; [1971] 3 All ER 801; (1972) 56 Cr App R 18; [1971] 3 WLR 930; [1972] AC 378
 
Saw Choo Theng and Another -v- Sungei Biak Tin Nines Limited (Malaysia At Kuala Lumpur) [1971] UKPC 22
5 Jul 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rupert Anderson -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1971] UKPC 25
13 Jul 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Andrew Skeete -v- Leonard John [1971] UKPC 24
14 Jul 1971
PC

Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago)
[ Bailii ]
 
Maliban Biscuit Manufactories Limited -v- R. Subramaniam The Ceylon Mercantile Union N.L. Abeywira and Another (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 26
19 Jul 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ramdharry Insurance Company Ltd -v- Desmond O'Shea (Mauritius) [1971] UKPC 27
22 Jul 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Felton -v- Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367
2 Sep 1971

Justice Windeyer
Commonwealth, Wills and Probate
(Australia) The court was concerned to interpret the phrase "arising under any laws made by the Parliament"
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
The Government of The State of Penang and Another -v- Beng Hong Oon and Others (Malaysia) [1971] UKPC 29
5 Oct 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tak Ming Company Limited -v- Yee Sang Metal Supplies Company [1971] UKPC 28
5 Oct 1971
PC
Lord Pearson
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Abdool Latiff -v- Tani Peraud [1971] UKPC 32
6 Oct 1971
PC

Commonwealth
(Guyana)
[ Bailii ]
 
C. Suntharalingam -v- The Inspector of Police, Kankesanturai (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 31
6 Oct 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Walter Fletcher On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of Trustees and Committee of Doctor'S Cave Bathing Club -v- The Commissioner for Income Tax (Jamaica) [1971] UKPC 30
6 Oct 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rajamuni Gnanamuttu Moses -v- The Queen (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 34
27 Oct 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Linggi Plantations Limited -v- T. Pasubathy Ammal Alias Pasubathy Jagatheesan, Executrix of The Last Will of S. K. Jagatheesan, Deceased (Malaysia At Kuala Lumpur) [1971] UKPC 37
7 Dec 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Elizabeth Schaefer -v- Ellen Elizabeth Schuhmann and Others (New South Wales) [1971] UKPC 36
7 Dec 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue of Columbo -v- J. M. Rajaratnam (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 38
8 Dec 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Nirmal Son of Chandar Bali V. The Queen -v- The Queen V. Nirmal Son of Chandar Bali (Fiji Reasons) [1971] UKPC 39
8 Dec 1971
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Breskvar -v- Wall [1971] 126 C.L.R. 376
13 Dec 1971


Commonwealth, Registered Land
(High Court of Australia) The fact that an instrument of transfer of land was void or voidable did not prevent the transferee from acquiring an indefeasible interest in accordance with the instrument when it was registered.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Anderson -v- The Queen [1972] AC 100
1972

Lord Guest
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
The Board considered the application of the proviso in criminal appeals: “The test which an appeal court is to apply to the proviso was recently referred to by Viscount Dilhorne in Chung Kum Moey v Public Prosecutor for Singapore [1967] 2 AC 173, 185 quoting the classic passage by Lord Sankey in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462, 482–483, whether ‘if the jury had been properly directed they would inevitably have come to the same conclusion’. Viscount Dilhorne also referred to Stirland v Director of Public Prosecutions [1944] AC 315, 321, where Lord Simon said that the provision assumed ‘a situation where a reasonable jury, after being properly directed would, on the evidence properly admissible, without doubt convict.’”

 
Jablonowski -v- Jablonowski (1972) 28 DLR (3d) 440
1972

Lerner J
Commonwealth, Family
(Ontario High Court) The petitioner had met both the residence and animus requirements despite having entered Canada illegally.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Teck Corporation Ltd -v- Millar; 1972 - [1972] 33 DLR (3d) 288
 
Schaefer -v- Schuman [1972] AC 572
1972
PC
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Estoppel, Wills and Probate, Contract, Commonwealth
(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.
1 Citers


 
Warren -v- Warren [1972] Qd R 386
1972

Matthews J
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
(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 a right of action did exist. Held: The defendant's application to set aside the writ was dismissed. There was a degree of flexibility in the rule which admitted of exception where clear and satisfactory grounds were shown why it should be departed from and that, on the facts of that case, it was right to apply the law of the forum even if the acts were not actionable by the law of the locus delicti.
1 Citers


 
Josephine Mary Aloysia Morais -v- Francesca Victoria (Ceylon) [1972] UKPC 1
11 Jan 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Loh Boon Siew -v- Chin Kim and Another; PC 8-Feb-1972 - [1972] UKPC 2
 
The New India Assurance Company Ltd -v- Yeo Beng Chow Alias Yeo Beng Chong (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 6
28 Mar 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tay Koh Yat Bus Company Limited -v- Chau Chong Cher and Others (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 3
28 Mar 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Winifred Adele Egan -v- City of Northcote (Victoria) [1972] UKPC 5
28 Mar 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Maria Staska -v- General Motors-Holden'S Proprietary Limited (Australia) [1972] UKPC 4
28 Mar 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ingeborg Gerda Pettsch -v- Frederick Hugh Kennedy and Others (New South Wales) [1972] UKPC 7
28 Mar 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
F. J. Bloemen Pty. Limited Formerly Canterbury Pipelines (Aust.) Pty. Ltd -v- The Council of The City of Gold Coast (Queensland) [1972] UKPC 8
2 May 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Samsoondar Ramcharan -v- The Queen (Trinidad and Tobago) [1972] UKPC 9
3 May 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lim Yam Tek and Another -v- The Public Prosecutor (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 10
5 Jun 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Edwards -v- Regina [1972] UKPC 1
27 Jun 1972
PC

Commonwealth, Crime
(Hong Kong)
[ Bailii ]
 
Sir Neville Ashenheim -v- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Jamaica) [1972] UKPC 13
27 Jun 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Graham Edwards Alias David Christopher Murray -v- The Queen (Hong Kong) [1972] UKPC 14
27 Jun 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commercial Banking Company of Sydeny Limited -v- Jalsard Pty. Limited (Trading As Jalsard Trading Company) (New South Wales) [1972] UKPC 12
27 Jun 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Arnold Malbre & Co. Ltd. -v- Kingston Pilotage Authority (Jamaica) [1972] UKPC 11
27 Jun 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Willoughby Arthur Vickers-Davis -v- The Administrator General (Jamaica) [1972] UKPC 15
17 Jul 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bookers Stores Limited -v- Mustapha Ally (Guyana) [1972] UKPC 16
18 Jul 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 The Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue -v- Knight; PC 26-Jul-1972 - [1972] UKPC 18

 
 The Cross-Harbour Tunnel Company Limited -v- The Collector of Stamp Revenue; PC 26-Jul-1972 - [1972] UKPC 17

 
 Regina -v- Salisbury; 9-Oct-1972 - [1976] VR 452; [1976] VicRp 45
 
Anker Livingstone Wartho Hansen and Others -v- Commissioner of Inland Revenue (New Zealand) [1972] UKPC 19
23 Oct 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Stamp Duties -v- Alan Cavaye Atwill and Others (Australia) [1972] UKPC 20
7 Nov 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Falkiner and Another -v- The Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1972] UKPC 21; [1973] AC 565; [1973] STC 85; [1973] 1 All ER 598; [1972] TR 297; [1973] 2 WLR 334
7 Nov 1972
PC
Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Dilhorne, Simon of Glaisdale LL, Sir Richard Wild
Commonwealth, Wills and Probate, Trusts
New South Wales - The settlor had made a settlement on 4 October 1961 and died 11 days later. The ultimate trust was in favour of 'the next of kin of the settlor as determined by the provisions now in force of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898-1954 of the State of New South Wales'. There was a claim for death duties on the settled property, and one of the issues was whether the clause contained 'a trust . . . to take effect after [the deceased person's] death' within section 102(2)(a) of the Stamp Duties Act 1920-1959. Held: The next of kin were to be determined at the settlor's death, not at the date of the settlement, and death duties were payable accordingly.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Paul Wallis Furnell -v- The Whangarei High Schools Board (New Zealand) [1972] UKPC 22
13 Nov 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tak Ming Company Limited -v- Yee Sang Metal Supplies Company (Hong Kong); PC 11-Dec-1972 - [1972] UKPC 23; [1973] 1 All ER 569; [1973] 1 WLR 300
 
Philip Farquharson -v- The Queen (Bahamas) [1972] UKPC 24
19 Dec 1972
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Canadian Aero Service Ltd -v- O'Malley; 1973 - (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 371
 
Tampion -v- Anderson [1973] VR 715
1973


Commonwealth, Torts - Other
(Full Court of Victoria)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re Wellington Publishing Company Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 133
1973


Company, Commonwealth
(New Zealand) The company a target of a takeover raised money (including by raising a loan on security of the company's assets). Those were then used to declare lawful dividends which were then declared to the takeover shareholder. Held: The arrangement did not to infringe Section 62 Companies Act 1955. The giving of lawful dividends was just an incident of the company activities as the raising of lawful loans and the repayment of lawful debts.
1 Citers


 
Texaco Antillies Limited -v- Dorothy Kernochan and Another (Bahamas) [1973] UKPC 1
15 Jan 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
James Subbaiya -v- Paul Nagaiya (Fiji) [1973] UKPC 2
15 Jan 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner for Railways, The Council of The City of Sydney and Wynyard Holdings Limited -v- The Valuer-General (New South Wales) [1973] UKPC 3
29 Jan 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Western Stores Limited -v- The Council of The City of Orange [1973] UKPC 5; [1973] AC 774; [1973] 2 WLR 727
5 Feb 1973
PC
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Salmon
Commonwealth, Rating, Local Government
New South Wales - Where a public authority has exercised a power dependent on its prior formation of an opinion which was open on the facts before the authority, it is to be presumed, in default of reason to the contrary, that the requisite opinion was formed and the power was properly exercised.
[ Bailii ]
 
Arthur Francis -v- The Chief of Police [1973] UKPC 4; [1974] Crim LR 50; [1973] 2 WLR 505; [1973] AC 761; [1973] 2 All ER 251
5 Feb 1973
PC

Commonwealth, Crime, Constitutional
(St. Christopher and Nevis and Anguilla) The appellant had spoken at a public meeting using a microphone without first obtaining the required license. The meeting itself ha already been approved. He complained that his arrest under the law had been unconstitutional. The magistrate referred for the determination of the High Court the question whether section 5 of the Public Meetings and Processions Act 1969 offended against section 10 of the Constitution. The High Court held that section 5 of the Act did not infringe the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by section 10 of the Constitution and their decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Held: , Dismissing the appeal, the control of loudspeakers at public meetings by section 5 of the Act of 1969 was not contrary to section 10 of the Constitution, for public order required that the public, who did not wish to hear the speaker, be protected from any excessive noise. Per curiam. A wrongful refusal of permission to use a loudspeaker at a public meeting (for instance if the refusal is inspired by political partiality) would be an unjustified and therefore unconstitutional interference with freedom of communication.
[ Bailii ]
 
Siew Soon Wah Alias Pooi Yong and Others -v- Yong Toon Hong (Sued As A Firm) (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 6
28 Feb 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pegang Mining Company Limited -v- Choong Sam and Others (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 8
7 Mar 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
New Zealand Netherlands Society Oranje Incorporated -v- Laurentius Cornelis Kuys and Another (New Zealand) [1973] UKPC 7
7 Mar 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Emma The Widow of Erik W. Gollcher -v- Walter Baldacchino and Others (Malta) [1973] UKPC 9
7 Mar 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Christopher Russell Lowery -v- The Queen (Victoria) [1973] UKPC 10
9 Apr 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sisir Kumar Datta -v- The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1973] UKPC 11
11 Apr 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Public Prosecutor -v- Fan Yew Teng (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 12
2 May 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lakshmijit S/O Bhai Suchit -v- Faiz Mohammed Khan Sherani (As Administrator of The Estate of Shahbaz Khan Deceased) (Fiji) [1973] UKPC 13
2 May 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bank Negara Indonesia -v- Philip Hoalim (Singapore) [1973] UKPC 14
14 May 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Government of Malaysia -v- Lee Hock Ning (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 15
19 Jun 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kirpalani'S Limited -v- Gerald Eckel (Trinidad & Tobago) [1973] UKPC 17
19 Jun 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Adolphus Henry Vaudin -v- Adolphus John Hamon and Others (Guernsey) [1973] UKPC 16
19 Jun 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Derek John Morton and Others (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Downing St.) [1973] UKPC 18
24 Jul 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Reginald M. Beck (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Downing St.) [1973] UKPC 19
25 Jul 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Stenhouse Australia Limited -v- Marshall William Davidson Phillips (New South Wales) [1973] UKPC 20
2 Oct 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Stenhouse Australia Ltd -v- Phillips [1974] AC 391; [1973] UKPC 1; [1974] 1 All ER 117; [1974] 2 WLR 134
2 Oct 1973
PC
Lord Wilberforce
Employment, Commonwealth
(Australia) An employer's claim for protection from competition by a former employee under a restrictive covenant must be based upon the identification of some advantage or asset inherent in the business which can properly be regarded as, in a general sense, his property, and which it would be unjust to allow the employee to appropriate for his own purposes, even though he, the employee, may have contributed to its creation.
Lord Wilberforce said: "The employer's claim for protection must be based upon the identification of some advantage or asset inherent in the business which can properly be regarded as, in a general sense, his property, and which it would be unjust to allow the employee to appropriate for his own purposes, even though he, the employee, may have contributed to its creation." and
"The question is not how long the employee could be expected to enjoy, by virtue of his employment, a competitive edge over others seeking the clients' business. It is, rather, what is a reasonable time during which the employer is entitled to protection against solicitation of clients with whom the employee had contact and influence during employment and who were not bound to the employer by contract or by stability of association. This question, secondly, their Lordships do not consider can advantageously form the subject of direct evidence. It is for the judge, after informing himself as fully as he can of the facts and circumstances relating to the employer's business, the nature of the employer's interest to be protected, and the likely effect on this of solicitation, to decide whether the contractual period is reasonable or not. An opinion as to the reasonableness of elements of it, particularly of the time during which it is to run, can seldom be precise, and can only be formed on a broad and common sense view."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wong Thin Yit -v- Mhd. Ali Bin P.S. Ismail (Suing As An Infant Through His Father and Next Friend Abdul Rahman S/O Syed Ibramshah) (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 21
24 Oct 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Hon-Ton (Reasons) -v- The Queen (Hong Kong) [1973] UKPC 30
31 Oct 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern Portland Cement Limited -v- Rodney John Cooper (An Infant By His Next Friend Peter Alphonsus Cooper) (Australia) [1973] UKPC 23
19 Nov 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ruby Frances Mary Hummerston and Another (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Downing St.) [1973] UKPC 24
19 Nov 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Finemore'S Transport Pty. Limited -v- Kathleen Mary Cluff (New South Wales) [1973] UKPC 22
19 Nov 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
N. Mahadevan (Lately An Infant But Now of Full Age) -v- K. Anandarajan and Others [1973] UKPC 25
22 Nov 1973
PC

Commonwealth
Malaysia
[ Bailii ]
 
The Government of Federation Malaysia -v- Calister Lionel (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 26
22 Nov 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ian Kenneth Tampion V. Kevin Victor Anderson and Another (Reasons) -v- Ian Kenneth Tampion V. Kevin Victor Anderson (Victoria) [1973] UKPC 29
5 Dec 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Nabieu S. Amadu V. Aiah Sidiki -v- Aiah Sidiki V. Nabieu S. Amadu (Consolidated Appeals) (Sierra Leone) [1973] UKPC 28
5 Dec 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Barton -v- Armstrong [1976] AC 104; [1973] UKPC 2
5 Dec 1973
PC
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Crossand Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Torts - Other, Commonwealth, Contract
The appellant had executed a deed on behalf of a company to sell shares to the respondent in the context of a long running boardroom battle. He said that the deed had been obtained by duress and was voidable. The respondent was said to have threatened the appellant with death. Held: The House considered the elements necessary to establish a defence of duress to a claim in tort.
Lord Cross said: "The scope of common law duress was very limited and at a comparatively early date equity began to grant relief in cases where the disposition in question had been procured by the exercise of pressure which the Chancellor considered to be illegitimate—although it did not amount to common law duress. " and "there is an obvious analogy between setting aside a disposition for duress or undue influence and setting it aside for fraud."
Lord Wilberforce (dissenting) said: "The basis of the plaintiff's claim is, thus, that though there was apparent consent there was no true consent to the agreement; that the agreement was not voluntary. This involves consideration of what the law regards as voluntary, or its opposite; for in life, including the life of commerce and finance, many acts are done under pressure, sometimes overwhelming pressure, so that one can say that the actor had no choice but to act. Absence of choice in this sense does not negate consent in law: for this the pressure must be one of a kind which the law does not regard as legitimate. Thus, out of the various means by which consent may be obtained—advice, persuasion, influence, inducement, representation, commercial pressure—the law has come to select some which it will not accept as a reason for voluntary action: fraud, abuse of relation of confidence, undue influence, duress or coercion."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alexander Barton -v- Alexander Ewan Armstrong and Others (New South Wales) [1973] UKPC 27
5 Dec 1973
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Rees -v- Sinclair; 1974 - [1974] 1 NZLR 180
 
Lowery -v- The Queen [1974] AC 85
1974
PC
Morris L
Crime, Evidence, Commonwealth
(Victoria) A young girl was sadistically murdered. The two accused, were present and the crime was committed by one or the other, or both. Each brought evidence of the unlikelihood that he could have committed the murder. L emphasised his good character and said that because of fear of K he had been unable to prevent the murder. K said that he had been under the influence of drugs and had been powerless to prevent L from killing the girl. Despite L's objection, K was allowed to call a psychologist as to their respective personalities and, on that evidence, to invite the jury to conclude that it was less probable that K was the killer. They were both convicted. L unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria on the ground, inter alia, that the psychologist's evidence ought not to have been admitted. Held: Only in exceptionl circumstances can expert evidence be admissible as to the likelihood of the defendant's veracity. The evidence of the psychologist was relevant in support of K's case to show that his version of the facts was more probable than that put forward by the appellant. Accordingly the Privy Council dismissed the appeal. Evidence is relevant 'if it tended to show that the version of the facts put forward by one co-accused was more probable than that put forward by the other'. The Board approved a statement as to the law: "It is … established by the highest authorities that in criminal cases the Crown is precluded from leading evidence that does no more than show that the accused has a disposition or propensity or is the sort of person likely to commit the crime charged; .. it is, we think, one thing to say that such evidence is excluded when tendered by the Crown in proof of guilt, but quite another to say that it is excluded when tendered by the accused in disproof of his own guilt. We see no reason of policy or fairness which justifies or requires the exclusion of evidence relevant to prove the innocence of an accused person."
1 Citers



 
 Howard Smith Limited -v- Ampol Petroleum Limited; PC 1974 - [1974] AC 821; [1974] UKPC 3

 
 Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Brooks; PC 1974 - [1974] AC 862
 
Lower Hutt City Council -v- Bank [1974] 1 NZLR 545
1974

McCarthy P
Commonwealth, Local Government
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court was asked about the validity of a decision of a local council where it was said that a councillor had already made up his mind: "It cannot be doubted that one of the cardinal principle of natural justice, and one of very wide application, is that in the absence of statutory authority or consensual agreement or the operation of necessity, no man can be a judge in his own cause. But again, the extent to which this fundamental principle applies must be governed by the relevant circumstances, including, especially, the statutory provisions relating to the function. It is a patent consequence of the rule that no man can be a judge in his own cause that where the circumstances reasonably indicate the likelihood of bias on the part of the adjudicator, he will, unless one of the exceptions stated above apply, be disqualified. It is now necessary to see, in the light of the applicable circumstances, to what extent these rules apply to a council dealing with objections to a proposed street stopping. It is obvious that before a council reaches the stage of deciding to put in motion the machinery for stopping, much investigation will have been undertaken and many decisions made. There will have been a resolution passed by the council. A fair minded and responsible person might well think that when a council have reached that stage of decision, a real likelihood of bias must be seen to be present, because the council must to a large extent have pre-determined the issue. Nevertheless, the Legislature, well-knowing this, has designedly left it to councils to determine at the next stage whether objections should be sustained. So something less than the scrupulous state of impartiality and its appearance required of Courts of justice is required of councils in these circumstances. We think that the state of impartiality which is required is the capacity in a council to preserve a freedom, notwithstanding earlier investigations and decisions, to approach their duty of inquiring into and disposing of the objections without a closed mind, so that if considerations advanced by objectors bring them to a different frame of mind they can, and will go back on their proposals ... "
1 Citers


 
Paxhaven Holdings Ltd -v- Attorney-General [1974] 2 NZLR 185
1974

Mahon J
Commonwealth, Nuisance
(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"
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Borambil Pty. Limited -v- Frances O'Carroll (New South Wales) [1974] UKPC 1
4 Feb 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Geelong Harbour Trust Commissioners -v- Gibb Bright & Co. (A Firm) (Australia) [1974] UKPC 2
4 Feb 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd -v- A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154; [1974] UKPC 1
25 Feb 1974
PC
Lord Wilberforce
Contract, Transport, Commonwealth, Contract
The Board considered the extent to which an exclusion clause in a bill of lading could be relied on by the third party stevedore, an independent contractor employed by the carrier, who was sued by the consignees of goods for negligently damaging the goods while unloading them. Held: (Majority) The board gave effect to the clause by regarding the shipper as having made an offer of a unilateral contract to the stevedores to unload the goods on terms incorporating the exclusion clause. This offer was accepted by the stevedores by commencing work. Lord Wilberforce The bill of lading: "... brought into existence a bargain initially unilateral but capable of becoming mutual, between the shipper and the [stevedores], made through the carrier as agent. This became a full contract when the [stevedores] performed services by discharging the goods. The performance of these services for the benefit of the shipper was the consideration for the agreement by the shipper that the [stevedores] should have the benefit of the exemptions and limitations contained in the bill of lading." The exclusion clause was entered into by the carrier as agent for its servants, agents and independent contractors, and therefore "the exemption is designed to cover the whole carriage from loading to discharge, by whomsoever it is performed: the performance attracts the exemption or immunity in favour of whoever the performer turns out to be". Also "In the opinion of their Lordships, to give the appellant the benefit of the exemptions and limitations contained in the bill of lading is to give effect to the clear intentions of a commercial document, and can be given within existing principles. They see no reason to strain the law or the facts in order to defeat these intentions. It should not be overlooked that the effect of denying validity to the clause would be to encourage actions against servants, agents and independent contractors in order to get round exemptions... "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The New Zealand Shipping Company Limited -v- A. M. Satterthwaite & Company Limited (New Zealand) [1974] UKPC 4
25 Feb 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Parochial Church Council of The Parish of St. John The Divine Leicester (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1974] UKPC 5
13 Mar 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Wishart Brooks [1974] UKPC 8
3 Apr 1974
PC

Commonwealth
Jamaica
[ Bailii ]
 
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Leary Walker (Jamaica) [1974] UKPC 7
3 Apr 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kathleen Frances Foster and Others (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1974] UKPC 6
4 Apr 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
James Vinoles -v- The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1974] UKPC 13
1 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Parochial Church Council of The Parish of Holy Trinity, Birkenhead (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1974] UKPC 12
6 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Santlal Son of Ram Autar -v- South Pacific Sugar Mill Limited and Another (Figi) [1974] UKPC 11
6 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gian Singh & Company Limited -v- Banque De L'Indochine (Singapore) [1974] UKPC 10
6 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Duncan Holden Maurice Campbell Menneer -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1974] UKPC 9
6 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth
(New Zealand)
[ Bailii ]
 
Keppel Bus Company Limited -v- Sa'Ad Bin Ahmad (Singapore) [1974] UKPC 15
20 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hitam Bin Abdullah and Another -v- Kok Foong Yee (F) and Another (Malaysia) [1974] UKPC 14
20 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Keppel Bus Company Ltd -v- Ahmad (Singapore) [1974] UKPC 2
20 May 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hiap Lee (Cheong Leong Leong and Sons) Bricklayers Limited -v- Weng Lok Mining Company Limited (Malaysia) [1974] UKPC 16
4 Jun 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
E. Gudger and Others (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc (Oral)) [1974] UKPC 17
17 Jun 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
R.A. Heddon and Another (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc (Oral)) [1974] UKPC 18
18 Jun 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lam Kee Ying Sdn. Bhd. -v- Lam Shes Tong T/A Lian Joo Co. and Another (Malaysia) [1974] UKPC 19
9 Jul 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pana Lana Ana Runa Arunasalam Chettiar and Others -v- Ana Runa Pana Lana Palaniappa Chettiar (Malaysia) [1974] UKPC 20
22 Jul 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
John Bertram Goddard -v- Laurent John (Saint Lucia) [1974] UKPC 21
22 Jul 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Jacqueline Awon -v- Elsie Allard (Trinidad and Tobago) [1974] UKPC 22
22 Jul 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cormack -v- Cope (1974) 131 CL R 432
5 Aug 1974

Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ
Commonwealth, Constitutional
(High Court of Australia) There was an alleged constitutional irregularity in the law-making process. Held: Ordinarily the court's interference to ensure due observance of the constitution in connection with the making of laws is effected by a post-enactment declaration that what purports to be an Act is void. This is a sufficient means of ensuring that the processes of law-making which the constitution requires are properly followed. But in point of jurisdiction the court is not limited to that method of ensuring the observance of the constitutional processes of law-making. In an appropriate case the court is able, and indeed in a proper case bound, to interfere. Exceptionally, there might be intervention in the parliamentary process. Menzies J. and Stephen J. Menzies J. stated that it was no part of the authority of the court to restrain Parliament from making unconstitutional laws, but left open the case where the adoption of a particular law-making procedure would defeat the constitutional power of the court to deal effectively with legislation when enacted. Stephen J based the limitation of court intervention on jurisdictional and not discretionary grounds, but he envisaged there may be exceptions.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Mrs. E. Constable and Another (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc (Oral)) [1974] UKPC 23
2 Oct 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Eccles -v- Bourque (1974) 50 DLR (3d) 753
11 Oct 1974

Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ
Commonwealth, Torts - Other, Police
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) An action was brought by the appellant against the respondents, three constables on the Vancouver Police Force, for damages for trespass alleged to have been committed when the police officers entered the appellant’s apartment to apprehend one C, for whom there were three outstanding warrants. The officers were in plain clothes but were armed. They gave notice of presence by knocking on the door of the apartment and after it was opened notice of identity was given. An officer then told the appellant the reason for the entry. C was not found in the apartment. The appellant was successful at trial, but, on appeal, the Court of Appeal by a majority reversed. Leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the Court of Appeal. Held. The appeal should be dismissed.
Canlii Per Laskin C.J. and Judson, Spence and Dickson JJ.: The submission that a person who is by s. 450 of the Criminal Code authorized to make an arrest is, by s. 25, authorized by law to commit a trespass with or without force in the accomplishment of that arrest, provided he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, was not accepted. Section 25 merely affords justification to a person for doing what he is required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, if he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, and for using necessary force for that purpose. The question was whether the respondents were required or authorized by law to commit a trespass, not whether they were required or authorized to make an arrest. If they were authorized by law to commit a trespass, the authority for it must be found in the common law for there is nothing in the Criminal Code.
Unlike civil process, in the execution of criminal process the test is whether there are reasonable and probable grounds for acting. If the police officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe that the person named in the warrant for arrest is in the home of a stranger he has the right, after proper demand, to enter the home forcibly, to search and to arrest. In the present case the police officers had reasonable and probable grounds for believing that C was in the appellant’s apartment.
Except in exigent circumstances, the police officers must make an announcement prior to entry. In the ordinary case, before forcing entry, they should give (i) notice of presence by knocking or ringing the doorbell, (ii) notice of authority, by identifying themselves as law enforcement officers and (iii) notice of purpose, by stating a lawful reason for entry. On the facts of this case, proper notice was given.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Kenneth Mckinneey Higgs and Another Substituted for Clotilda Eugenie Higgs (Deceased) -v- Nassauvian Limited (Bahamas) [1974] UKPC 24
14 Oct 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gerard Parkes Heywood -v- The Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1974] UKPC 25
15 Oct 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
David See Chai Lam and Another -v- The House of Dior Limited (Hong Kong) [1974] UKPC 26
23 Oct 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Thomas Fahey -v- M.S.D. Spiers Limited (New Zealand) [1974] UKPC 27
24 Oct 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd. and Another -v- Wyong Shire Council (New South Wales) [1974] UKPC 28
24 Oct 1974
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Paramount Betting Limited -v- The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another [1974] UKPC 29
13 Nov 1974
PC

Commonwealth
(Jamaica)
[ Bailii ]
 
Cudgen Rutile (No.2) Pty Ltd and Another -v- Gordon William Wesley Chalk (And Consolidated Appeals) [1974] UKPC 30
13 Nov 1974
PC

Commonwealth
(Queensland)
[ Bailii ]
 
General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd -v- Stoyakovich [1975] Qd R 352
1975


Commonwealth, Equity, Banking
A mortgagee sued the mortgagor for money owing under a mortgage after the sale by the mortgagee of the security. The mortgagors alleged that the sale was at a gross undervalue and sought to set-off their claim against the debt owed to the mortgagee. On an application by the mortgagee for summary judgment, Dunn J. in the Queensland Supreme Court gave the mortgagors conditional leave to defend; if there was a sale at the alleged undervalue of $l0,200, the mortgagee's claim should be reduced by that sum.
1 Citers


 
Taylor -v- Attorney-General [1975] 2 NZLR 675
1975


Commonwealth, Contempt of Court
(New Zealand - Court of Appeal) A court has power to make an explicit order directed to and binding on the public ipso jure as to what might lawfully be published outside the courtroom in relation to proceedings held before it.
1 Citers


 
In Re Irving (1975) 66 DLR (3d) 387)
1975


Commonwealth, Trusts
The (Canadian) court considered an application to vary a trust on behalf of a child, and asked itself: "Would a prudent adult, motivated by intelligent self-interest, and after sustained consideration of the proposed trusts and powers and the circumstances in which they may fall to be implemented, be likely to accept the proposal?"
1 Citers



 
 Maridakis -v- Kouvaris; 1975 - (1975) 5 ALR 197
 
Baker -v- The Queen [1975] AC 774
1975
PC

Commonwealth
The Court of Appeal for Jamaica was not bound by a proposition of law contained in a previous decision of the Board which the Board had assumed without argument to be correct for the purpose of disposing of that case.
1 Citers


 
Attorney General -v- Antigua Times Ltd [1975] 3 All ER 81; [1975] 3 WLR 232
1975
PC

Commonwealth
The Board should not seek to determine questions not directly raised in the appeal before it.
1 Citers


 
Alhaji Malang Kanteh -v- The Attorney General and Others (Gambia) [1975] UKPC 1
14 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hakim E.F. Gordon (In His Personal Capacity and As Personal Representative of The Estate of Clara Marguerite Gordon (Deceased) -v- Castaways Developments Limited and Another (Dominica) [1975] UKPC 2
14 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sharangdhar Prasad -v- General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1975] UKPC 3
15 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Edward Francis Nakhala -v- Her Majesty The Queen (New Zealand) [1975] UKPC 5
27 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rose Hall Limited -v- Elizabeth Lovejoy Reeves (Jamaica) [1975] UKPC 4
27 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wah Tat Bank Ltd. Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd. -v- Chan Cheng Kum (Singapore) [1975] UKPC 8
27 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Yat Tung Investment Company Limited -v- Dao Heng Bank Limited and Another (Hong Kong) [1975] UKPC 6
27 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Amoco Australia Pty. Limited -v- Rocca Bros. Motor Engineering Co. Pty. Limited (South Australia) [1975] UKPC 7
27 Jan 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mrs. B. Pim and Others (Pastoral Measure) (Reasons) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1975] UKPC 10
20 Mar 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tractors Malaysia Limited -v- Tio Chee Hing (Malaysia) [1975] UKPC 11
10 Apr 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael De Freitas Also Called Michael Abdul Malik -v- George Ramoutar Benny, The Attorney General, Tom Iles, Commissioner of Prisons (Trinidad and Tobago) [1975] UKPC 12
1 May 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Shigeo Kitano (Reasons) -v- The Commonwealth of Australia (Australia) [1975] UKPC 9
6 May 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chop Seng Heng (Sued As A Firm) (Fourth Defendants) -v- Thevannasan S/O Sinnapan, Sing Cheong Hin Lorry Transport Co. (Sued As A Firm) [1975] UKPC 13
6 May 1975
PC

Commonwealth
(Malaysia)
[ Bailii ]
 
N. A. Coxwell-Rogers and Another (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1975] UKPC 14
7 May 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Eaton Baker and Another -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1975] UKPC 16
19 May 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General and The Minister of Home Affairs -v- Antigua Times Limited (Antigua) [1975] UKPC 15
19 May 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Malayan Banking Berhad -v- Tan Fong Guan and Others (Malaysia) [1975] UKPC 17
4 Jun 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ashton and Another -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1975] UKPC 18
9 Jul 1975
PC

Commonwealth
New Zealand
[ Bailii ]
 
Yahaya Bin Mohammed -v- Chin Tuan Nam (Malaysia) [1975] UKPC 19
21 Jul 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Moses Hinds, Elkanah Hutchinson, Henry Martin, Samuel Thomas V. The Queen -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions V. Trevor Jackson (Intervener) (Jamaica) [1975] UKPC 22
28 Jul 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cession Lal and Another -v- The Queen (Fiji) [1975] UKPC 20
30 Oct 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Owners of The Ship Philippine Admiral (Philippine Flag) -v- Wellem Shipping (Hong Kong) Limited and Another (Hong Kong) [1975] UKPC 21
5 Nov 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hinds and other -v- The Queen; Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Jackson, attorney General of Jamaica (Intervenor); PC 1-Dec-1975 - [1976] 1 All ER 1976; [1976] 2 WLR 366; (1975) 119 SJ 864; [1976] Crim LR 124; [1977] AC 195
 
Peter Ziderman -v- General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1975] UKPC 26
8 Dec 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Fraser Haggart -v- General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1975] UKPC 24
8 Dec 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Maria Chia Sook Lan (M.W.) V. Bank of China -v- Maria Chia Sook Lan (M.W.) V. Bank of China (Singapore) [1975] UKPC 25
8 Dec 1975
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Surjit Lal Chhabda -v- Commissioner of Income Tax [1976] AIR 109
1976


Commonwealth
(Indian Supreme Court) The court defined the idea of coparceny: "A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property and these are the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being, that is to say the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent. Since under the Mitakshara Law, the right to joint family property by birth is vested in the male issue only, females . . cannot be coparceners..."
1 Citers


 
Moorhouse -v- University of New South Wales [1976] RPC 151
1976

Gibbs J
Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) The plaintiffs complained that the facilities of a library included a photocopying machine, alleging that this encouraged copyright infringement. Held; Gibbs J said: "a person who has under his control the means by which an infringement of copyright may be committed - such as a photocopying machine - and who makes it available to other persons, knowing, or having reason to suspect, that it is likely to be used for the purpose of committing an infringement, and omitting to take reasonable steps to limit its use to legitimate purposes, would authorise any infringement that resulted from its use."
1 Citers


 
Security Trust Co -v- The Royal Bank of Canada [1976] AC 503; [1975] UKPC 23
1976
PC
Lord Cross
Commonwealth, Land, Equity, Contract
(Bahamas) A company, Fisher agreed to buy land with part of the purchase price to be paid by a fixed date and the balance secured by a mortgage to the vendor. A conveyance and a mortgage were duly executed and held in escrow pending payment of the agreed proportion of the price. Fisher failed to pay the stipulated sum on the fixed date. Fisher then granted a debenture, creating a fixed charge on its existing property and a floating charge on future property. A receiver was subsequently appointed under the debenture. The contract was eventually completed. In the subsequent litigation, the question arose whether the charge over the property created by the debenture took priority over the vendor's mortgage. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, allowing the vendor's appeal, held that Fisher's interest in the land was merely an equity of redemption subject to the vendor's mortgage, and that the mortgage accordingly took priority over the charge created by the debenture. Lord Cross limited the extent of the law of escrow: "On fulfilment of the condition subject to which it was delivered as an escrow, a deed is not taken to relate back to the date of its delivery for all purposes, but only for such purposes as are necessary to give efficacy to the transaction - ut res magis valeat quam pereat (see Butler and Baker's case (1591) 3 CoRep 25a). Thus, the fact that the grantor has died before the condition of an escrow is fulfilled does not entail the consequence that the disposition fails. If and when the condition is fulfilled the doctrine of relation back will save it, but notwithstanding the relation back for that limited purpose the grantee is not entitled to the rents of the property during the period of suspense or to lease it or to serve notices to quit."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Allan J Panozza & Co Pty Ltd -v- Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd; 1976 - [1976] 2 NSWLR 192
 
Customglass Boats Limited -v- Salthouse Brothers Limited [1976] RPC 589
1976

Mahon J
Commonwealth, Damages
(New Zealand) The court examined the question of whether market resarch was admissible as expert evidence as to damages. Held: "So far as I can see, public opinion or survey evidence is not now in practice treated as hearsay in trade mark or patent cases in the United Kingdom notwithstanding that the party adducing such evidence relies not only upon the affidavits of persons responding to a questionnaire but also upon answers not sworn to but available for inspection by the other side in terms of the direction given in A. Baily & Co. v. Clark, Son & Morland. The latter class of answers, unsanctified by judicial oath, are resorted to by the other side in order to verify the assertion that the sworn answers in fact represent a proportion of a total number tending to the same evidentiary conclusion, and subject to that right of inspection the total number of answers is accepted, in the absence of objection as to their factual existence in due form, as comprising a legitimate assembly of class opinion or impression in respect of the trade name or mark under consideration. In such a case, as in the case of conventional evidence by retailers as to the oral terms of buying orders or inquiries by customers, the Courts plainly accept evidence which is technically overshadowed by a general hearsay objection. The unsworn persons responding to a questionnaire and the anonymous customers who order or inquire about goods are all people making statements out of Court to a witness called in the proceedings, and although the basis of admissibility does not appear to be overtly founded upon anything except established practice and procedure under the trade mark and patent legislation, I can for myself see no objection to the classification of such evidence either as proving a public state of mind on a specific question, which is an acknowledged exception to the hearsay rule, or as proving an external fact, namely, that a designated opinion is held by the public or a class of the public, this not being a matter of hearsay at all."
As to the weight to be attached to survey evidence: "There are obvious difficulties in the acceptance of testimony which purports to convey to the appropriate legal tribunal a number of individual assertions or opinions uttered in relation to the subject matter of the inquiry by persons not called as witnesses and, therefore, not subject to cross-examination, but the considerations which I have mentioned lead me to the conclusion that the result of a market research survey is admissible in this class of case to prove a fact in issue, whether it be reputation or likelihood of confusion or deception, even though the persons responding to the form of questions are not called as witnesses. The weight of such evidence, which was the basis of Mr. Gault's objection in this case as opposed to technical admissibility, will depend upon the circumstances. There must be a formulation of questions cast in such a way as to preclude a weighted or conditioned response, there must be clear proof that the answers were faithfully and accurately recorded, and there must be evidence that the answers were drawn from a true cross-section of that class of the public or trade whose impression or opinion is relevant to the matter in issue. A properly drawn market research questionnaire, carefully framed so as to elicit opinions or beliefs held by persons adequately informed, can only reveal in my opinion the existence or otherwise in a defined proportion of the persons interviewed of the relevant opinion or belief, and I do not think it can be right in cases involving trade mark infringement or passing off where evidence of reputation is relevant, and especially in a passing off action where affidavit evidence is not receivable to compel a party to produce in the Courtroom an interminable parade of witnesses to depose individually as to their knowledge and understanding of the trade association involved in a particular trade mark or design, so long as there are followed the cautionary procedures recommended in the article in the New York University Law Review above cited. The evidence obtained by research surrey is in my view legitimate proof of the fact the opinions obtained had in fact existed, whether rightly held or not and on that view of the matter it is my opinion that such evidence is not hearsay at all and that, even if it did fall within the technical concept of hearsay or representing a collation of individual statements made out of Court then the evidence would still be admissible by way of exception to the hearsay rule because it exhibits the existence of a state of mind shared in common by a designated class of persons. In the present case the method and procedure of taking this research survey has already been described and I am satisfied that those methods and procedure were not only adequate but exemplary, and that the results thus obtained are admissible in evidence as proving the reputation of the name in question in relation to the manufacturer and the designer and the place of origin as held by persons properly informed on the general subject matter of the relevant enquiry."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
New Zealand Institute of Agriculture Science Inc -v- Ellesmere County [1976] 1 NZLR 630
1976

Cooke J
Litigation Practice, Commonwealth
(New Zealand High Court) Cooke J: "Whether non-compliance with a procedural requirement is fatal turns less on attaching a perhaps indefinite label to that requirement than on considering its place in the scheme of the Act or regulations and the degree and seriousness of the non-compliance."
1 Citers


 
Motherwell -v- Motherwell (1976) 73 DLR (3d) 62
1976

Clement JA
Nuisance, Commonwealth
(Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court) The court recognised that not only the legal owner of property could obtain an injunction, on the ground of private nuisance, to restrain persistent harassment by unwanted telephone calls to his home, but also that the same remedy was open to his wife who had no interest in the property: "Here we have a wife harassed in the matrimonial home. She has a status, a right to live there with her husband and children. I find it absurd to say that her occupancy of the matrimonial home is insufficient to found an action in nuisance. In my opinion she is entitled to the same relief as is her husband, the brother."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Europa Oil (N.Z.) Limited -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (And Cross Appeal) (New Zealand) [1976] UKPC 1
13 Jan 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Star Industrial Company Limited -v- Yap Kwee Kor Trading As New Star Industrial Company (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 2
26 Jan 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohd. Yasin Bin Hussin Alias Rosli -v- The Public Prosecutor (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 3
2 Feb 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chang -v- Registrar of Titles (1976) 137 CLR 177; (1976) 50 ALJR 404; (1976) 8 ALR 285; [1976] HCA 1
11 Feb 1976

Mason J, Jacob J
Land, Contract, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) The court discussed the trusteeship arising on a contract for the sale of land. Mason J: "It has long been established that a vendor of real estate under a valid contract of sale is a trustee of the property sold for the purchaser. However, there has been controversy as to the time when the trust relationship arises and as to the character of that relationship. Lord Eldon considered that a trust arose on execution of the contract (Paine v Meller; Broome v Monck). Plumer M.R. thought that until it is known whether the agreement will be performed the vendor 'is not even in the situation of a constructive trustee; he is only a trustee sub modo, and providing nothing happens to prevent it. It may turn out that the title is not good, or the purchaser may be unable to pay' (Wall v Bright). Lord Hatherley said that the vendor becomes a trustee for the purchaser when the contract is completed, as by payment of the purchase money (Shaw v Foster). Jessel M.R. held that a trust sub modo arises on execution of the contract but that the constructive trust comes into existence when title is made out by the vendor or is accepted by the purchaser (Lysaght v Edwards). Sir George Jessel's view was accepted by the Court of Appeal in Rayner v Preston.
It is accepted that the availability of the remedy of specific performance is essential to the existence of the constructive trust which arises from a contract of sale". Jacob J: "Where there are rights outstanding on both sides, the description of the vendor as a trustee tends to conceal the essentially contractual relationship which, rather than the relationship of trustee and beneficiary, governs the rights and duties of the respective parties".
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Issac Paul Ratnam -v- The Law Society of Singapore (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 5
2 Mar 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lap Shun Industrial Company Limited -v- The Collector of Stamp Revenue (Hong Kong) [1976] UKPC 4
2 Mar 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gladys Sarah Becker -v- The Corporation of The City of Marion and Another (Australia) [1976] UKPC 6
2 Mar 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Najar Singh -v- The Government of Malaysia and Another (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 7
8 Mar 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Trustees of Seramco Limited Superannuation Fund -v- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Jamaica) [1976] UKPC 8
8 Mar 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Stamp Duties -v- Bone and Others [1976] TR 117; [1976] 2 All ER 354; [1977] AC 511; [1976] UKPC 11; [1976] 2 WLR 968; [1976] STC 145
5 Apr 1976
PC
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen
Commonwealth, Wills and Probate
(Australia) A debt can only be released and extinguished by an agreement for valuable consideration or an instrument of release under seal. Where a testator or testratrix appoints a debtor as executor under a will any cause of action against the debtor is extinguished because an executor cannot sue himself.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Peretual Trustee Company Limited -v- The Commissioner of Stamp Duties (New South Wales) [1976] UKPC 10
5 Apr 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hannaford & Barton Ltd. -v- Polaroid Corporation (New Zealand) [1976] UKPC 9
5 Apr 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Junior Cottle and Lorraine Laidlow -v- The Queen (Saint Vincent) [1976] UKPC 12
5 Apr 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Raja's Commercial College (Sued As A Firm) -v- Gian Singh & Company Limited (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 14
27 Apr 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Registrar of Titles, Johore, Johore Bahru -v- Temenggong Securities Ltd. and Another (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 13
27 Apr 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ram Shankar S/O Pachu -v- Parekh Holings Ltd. (Fiji) [1976] UKPC 16
24 May 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Aubyn Mcbean -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1976] UKPC 17
22 Jun 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Marene Knitting Mills Pty. Limited -v- Greater Pacific General Insurance Limited (New South Wales) [1976] UKPC 26
15 Jul 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanley Abbott -v- The Queen (Trinidad and Tobago) [1976] UKPC 19
20 Jul 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Donald Parkes -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1976] UKPC 20
20 Jul 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lee Kee Choong -v- Empat Nombor Ekok (N.S.) Sdn. Bhd. & Others (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 21
26 Jul 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ramesh Lawrence Maharj -v- The Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago [1976] UKPC 22
27 Jul 1976
PC

Commonwealth
Trinidad and Tobago
[ Bailii ]
 
The Council of Municipality of Ashfield -v- Norman James Peel Joyce and Others [1976] UKPC 23
29 Jul 1976
PC

Commonwealth
New South Wales
[ Bailii ]
 
Santo Oteri and Gaetano Oter -v- The Queen (Australia) [1976] UKPC 25
4 Oct 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Philip Hoalim Jr. and Another -v- The State Commissioner Penang (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 24
5 Oct 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dorothy Haldane -v- George Christopher Haldane (New Zealand) [1976] UKPC 27
11 Oct 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Maharaj -v- Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago [1977] 1 All ER 411
11 Oct 1976
PC
Lord Salmon
Commonwealth, Contempt of Court, Natural Justice
A judge of the High Court had committed the barrister appellant to prison for seven days for contempt in the face of the court. The barrister was granted special leave to appeal to the Board against the committal order. Held: Allowing the appeal. The judge had, however inadvertently, failed to serve a fundamental rule of natural justice, that a person accused of an offence should be told plainly enough to give him an opportunity to put forward any expkanation or excuse that he may wish to advance: "In charging the appellant with contempt, Maharaj J did not make plain to him the particulars of the specific nature of the contempt with which he was charged. This must usually be done before an alleged contemnor can properly be convicted and punished . . In their Lordships' view, justice certainly demanded that the judge should have done so in this particular case. Their Lordships are satisfied that his failure to explain that the contempt with which he intended to charge the appellant was what the judge has described in hiw written reasons as a 'vicious attack on the integrity of the Court' vitiates the committal for contempt."
Lord Salmon said: "Their Lordships recognise how important it is not to waste judicial time. But if this can be avoided only by finding against a party without giving him a fair chance of being heard, then such a price for saving judicial time is far too high."
Lord Salmon said: "No point was taken on the hearing of the petition for special leave that such an appeal does not lie to Her Majesty in Council, nor was any such point taken in the respondent's case. The point was however raised for the first time as a preliminary objection at the hearing of this appeal. Their Lordships can deal with it quite shortly.
It was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the point would have been unarguable before 1962, since it has long been well settled that it is competent for Her Majesty in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court. Their Lordships consider that the point is equally unarguable now for they can discover nothing in the Trinidad and Tobago Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1962 or the Trinidad and Tobago (Procedure in Appeals to Privy Council) Order in Council 1962 which touches Her Majesty's power in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
J. R. Brown (Pastoral Measure 1968) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1976] UKPC 29
16 Nov 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
K. G. Toombs and Another (Pastoral Measure 1968) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1976] UKPC 31
17 Nov 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Collector of Land Revenue Singapore -v- Philip Hoalim (And Cross-Appeal) (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 32
17 Nov 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Goh Leng Kang -v- Teng Swee Lin and Others (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 30
17 Nov 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd -v- Dredge "Willemstad" [1976] HCA 65; (1976) 136 CLR 529
9 Dec 1976

Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.
Commonwealth, Damages, Negligence, Transport
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence - Duty of care - Foreseeability of harm - Economic loss not consequential upon damage to person or property - Damage to property of one person - Economic loss suffered by person as a result - Pipeline carrying oil to plaintiff's depot - Damaged by defendant's negligence - Supply interrupted - Pipeline and depot owned by different persons - Expense incurred by plaintiff in arranging alternative means of delivery - Whether recoverable - Remoteness of loss or damage.
Shipping and Navigation - Action in rem - Action against ship - Negligence - Master not sued as defendant - Appearance entered by master - No proprietary interest in ship - Whether master liable to judgment.
A pipeline was damaged and the owner of the terminal (who was not the owner of the pipeline) incurred expense in transporting refined oil to the terminal while the pipeline was out of use. Held. The plaintiff was entitled to recover that expense from the dredger which had damaged the pipeline. Jacobs J said that the duty of care owed to the owner of the pipeline was also owed to "a person whose property was in such physical propinquity to the place where the acts of omissions of the dredge . . had their physical effect that a physical effect on the property of that person was foreseeable as the result of such acts or omissions".
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Menaka Wife of M. Deivarayan -v- Lum Kum Chum (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 33
21 Dec 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Amratlal Jamnadas (S/O Jamnadas) -v- Gulab Ben (D/O Ratanji) (Fiji) [1976] UKPC 18
21 Dec 1976
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Haldane -v- Haldane; PC 1977 - [1977] AC 673
 
The Queen in Right of Alberta -v- Canadian Transport Commission (1977) 75 DLR (3d) 257
1977


Commonwealth, Constitutional
The Crown in right of Alberta may be equated with the Government of Alberta.
1 Citers


 
Geyer -v- Downs and another [1977] 17 ALR 408
1977

Murphy and Aickin JJ
Negligence, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) A pupil suffered injuries when hit by a softball bat by a fellow pupil at playing the game in the school playground before school. There was no supervision. The jury awarded the appellant damages. The verdict was set aside by the court of appeal. Held: The appeal to the High Court was allowed: "It was urged for the respondent that there was no duty of supervision owed to the children before “school hours”. That expression was taken in the present case to mean the period of time beginning at 9.00 am, at which the “Daily Routine” stated that the playgrounds were to be supervised. Reliance was also placed upon the departmental instruction 5.2.4.1 as set out, supra, which it was said produced the result that the headmaster had no power or authority to require teachers to supervise the playground otherwise than during the hours 9.00 am to 3.30 pm as set out in that instruction. It was said therefore that the headmaster could not be regarded as negligent by failing to take measures to provide supervision of the playground prior to 9.00 am when he had no authority to direct any teacher to be present to perform that function. So to regard the case is to take an unduly restricted view of the relevant circumstances. There is no case which lays down that there is no duty of supervision prior to “school hours”, however that expression may be understood. The point seems to have been seldom referred to. In Ward v Hertfordshire County Council [1970] 1 All ER 535 at 538; [1970] 1 WLR 356 at 361, Salmon LJ expressly reserved the question whether lack of supervision could give rise to a cause of action in a case where the injury occurs at 8.50 am but “the school does not start until 8.55 am”. There seems no basis for treating it as a rule that there can be no duty of supervision outside “ordinary school hours” or “before school started”. The question must depend upon the nature of the general duty to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. It is not enough to look only at the departmental instructions and to say that the duty of supervision arises only during the periods referred to in those instructions."
1 Citers


 
Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd -v- Imperial Oil (1977) 69 DLR (3d) 558
1977

de Grandpre J
Commonwealth, Insurance, Construction
(Supreme Court of Canada) de Grandpre J: "On any construction site, and especially when the building being erected is a complex chemical plant, there is ever present the possibility of damage by one tradesman to the property of another and to the construction as a whole. Should this possibility become reality, the question of negligence in the absence of complete property coverage would have to be debated in Court. By recognising in all tradesmen an insurable interest based on that very real possibility, which itself has its source in the contractual arrangements opening the doors of the job site to the tradesmen, the Courts would apply to the construction field the principle expressed so long ago in the area of bailment. Thus all the parties whose joint efforts have one common goal, eg the completion of the construction, would be spared the necessity of fighting between themselves should an accident occur involving the possible responsibility of one of them."
1 Citers


 
The Government of Malaysia and Another -v- Selangor Pilot Association (Suing As A Firm) (Kaula Lumpur) [1977] UKPC 1
11 Jan 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Henri Lincoln and Others -v- The Governor-General of Mauritius and Others (Mauritius) [1977] UKPC 3
22 Mar 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Government of Malaysia -v- Iznan Bin Osman (Malaysia) [1977] UKPC 2
22 Mar 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rita Bennett -v- Paramount Dry Cleaners Limited (Jamaica) [1977] UKPC 5
31 Mar 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cumberland Holdings Limited -v- Washington H. Soul Pattison and Company Limited (New South Wales) [1977] UKPC 4
31 Mar 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
James Barton Gilbertson -v- The State of South Australia and Another (South Australia) [1977] UKPC 7
19 Apr 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Sanchez-Burke; PC 19-Apr-1977 - [1977] UKPC 6
 
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Donald White [1977] 3 WLR 447; [1977] Crim LR 418; [1977] UKPC 8; [1978] AC 426; [1977] 3 All ER 1003
28 Apr 1977
PC
Diplock, Simon of Glaisdale, Salmon, Edmund-Davies, Russell of Killowen LL
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(Jamaica) At his trial, the jury had first indicated that they were to give a majority verdict, but then returned a unanimous verdict. At the time, one hour had not passed and therefore a majority verdict was not available to them. The court had ordered a venire de novo. Held: In jurisdictions where appellate courts have power to order retrial "the concept of nullity of proceedings has been extended to situations beyond those covered by the ancient writ of venire de novo."
[ Bailii ]
 
Kenneth Mckiimey Higgs & Another -v- Caves Company Limited (Bahamas) [1977] UKPC 9
30 May 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Taupo Totara Timber Company Limited -v- Darcy Kevin Rowe (New Zealand) [1977] UKPC 10
28 Jun 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bp Australia Limited -v- Nabalco Pty. Limited (New South Wales) [1977] UKPC 11
4 Jul 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
B.P. Refinery (Westernport) Proprietary Limited -v- Shire of Hastings (Victoria) [1977] UKPC 13
27 Jul 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bernard Pianka & Terry Hylton -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1977] UKPC 15
27 Jul 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Limited -v- Kamsing Knitting Factory (A Firm) (Hong Kong) [1977] UKPC 14
27 Jul 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
David Adolphus Walton -v- The Queen (Barbados) [1977] UKPC 16
6 Oct 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mrs. D. Medcalf and Others -v- The Church Commissioners (Pastoral Measure 1968) [1977] UKPC 20
14 Nov 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ewen Neil Ross -v- John Samuel Lester Henderson (New Zealand) [1977] UKPC 19
15 Nov 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohamad Kunjo S/O Ramalan -v- The Public Prosecutor (Singapore) [1977] UKPC 18
15 Nov 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Karuppan Bhoomidas (Administrator of The Estate of Yeeranan S/O Solayappan, Deceased) -v- Port of Singapore Authority (Singapore) [1977] UKPC 17
15 Nov 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
and Benjamin Patrick -v- Beverley Gardens Development Company Ltd. and Another (Jamaica) [1977] UKPC 22
28 Nov 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
T. Mahesan S/O Thambiah -v- The Malaysia Government Officers' Co-Operative Housing (Malaysia) [1977] UKPC 21
28 Nov 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kenneth Frederick Patton (Trading As The Caribbean Daily Need Chemical Works -v- Colgate Palmolive Limited And, Colgate Palmolive (Trinidad) Limited (Trinidad and Tobago) [1977] UKPC 24
19 Dec 1977
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tan Keng Hong, Yoong Leok Kee Corporation Ltd -v- New India Assurance Company Ltd [1977] UKPC 23
19 Dec 1977
PC

Commonwealth
Malaysia
[ Bailii ]
 
Bowlay Logging Limited -v- Domtar Limited [1978] 4 WWR 105
1978

Berger J
Commonwealth, Damages, Contract
(Canada) The parties contracted for the claimant to cut timber and the defendant to haul it. The plaintiff said that the defendant breached the contract by supplying insufficient trucks to haul the timber away, and claimed as damages his wasted expenditure. Held: Only nominal damages could be awarded. A plaintiff was not entitled to damages on a basis which would leave him better off than he would have been in had the contract been performed. The plaintiff would have made a loss on the contract as a whole. Noting that the issue had not been raised in either Cullinane Anglia Television said: "The law of contract compensates a plaintiff for damages resulting from the defendant's breach; it does not compensate a plaintiff for damages resulting from his making a bad bargain. Where it can be seen that the plaintiff would have incurred a loss on the contract as a whole, the expenses he has incurred are losses flowing from entering into the contract, not losses flowing from the Defendant's breach. In these circumstances, the true consequence of the defendant's breach is that the plaintiff is released from his obligation to complete the contract- or, in other words, he is saved from incurring further losses.
If the law of contract were to move from compensating for the consequences of breach to compensating for the consequences of entering into contracts, the law would run contrary to the normal expectations of the world of commerce. The burden of risk would be shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant would become the insurer of the plaintiff's enterprise."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Brisbane City Council -v- Attorney General for Queensland [1979] AC 411; [1978] 3 All ER 30; [1978] 3 WLR 299
1978
PC
Lord Wilberforce
Commonwealth, Estoppel
Lord Wilberforce approved Somervell LJ's words in Greenhalgh: "This is the true basis of the doctrine in Henderson v Henderson and it ought only to be applied when the facts are such as to amount to an abuse: otherwise there is a danger of a party being shut out from bringing forward a genuine subject of litigation."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Andrews -v- Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd [1978] 2 SCR 229
1978

Dickson J
Commonwealth, Damages
(Supreme Court of Canada) The injured plaintiff sought damages for future loss of earnings and for the cost of future care. Dickson J: "It is clear that a plaintiff cannot recover for the expense of providing for basic necessities as part of the cost of future care while still recovering fully for prospective loss of earnings. Without the accident, expenses for such items as food, clothing and accommodation would have been paid for out of earnings. They are not an additional type of expense occasioned by the accident.
When calculating the damage award, however, there are two possible methods of proceeding. One method is to give the injured party an award for future care which makes no deduction in respect of the basic necessities for which he would have had to pay in any event. A deduction must then be made for the cost of such basic necessities when computing the award for loss of prospective earnings: ie the award is on the basis of net earnings and not gross earnings. The alternative method is the reverse: ie to deduct the cost of basic necessities when computing the award for future care and then to compute the earnings award on the basis of gross earnings.
The trial judge took the first approach, reducing loss of future earnings by 53 per cent. The Appellate Division took the second. In my opinion, the approach of the trial judge is to be preferred. This is in accordance with the principle which I believe should underlie the whole consideration of damages for personal injuries: that proper future care is the paramount goal of such damages. To determine accurately the needs and costs in respect of future care, basic living expenses should be included.
The costs of necessaries when in an infirm state may well be different from those when in a state of health. Thus, while the types of expenses would have been incurred in any event, the level of expenses for the victim may be seen as attributable to the accident. In my opinion, the projected cost of necessities should, therefore, be included in calculating the cost of future care, and a percentage attributable to the necessities of a person in a normal state should be reduced from the award for future earnings."
1 Citers


 
Stopforth -v- Goyer (1978) 87 DLR (3d) 373
1978


Commonwealth, Constitutional
(High Court of Ontario)
1 Citers


 
Chernesky -v- Armadale Publishers Ltd (1978) 90 DLR (3rd) 321
1978

Lloyd LJ
Commonwealth, Defamation
(Supreme Court of Canada) The defendants were the editor and the owner and publisher of a newspaper which had published a letter to the editor in which the writers accused the plaintiff of holding racist views. The writers of the letter did not give evidence, but the defendants in their evidence made it clear that the letter complained of did not represent the honest expression of their own views. The trial judge refused to leave the defence of fair comment to the jury. Held: (by a majority of six to three) The judge was correct.
1 Citers


 
Penfold and Penfold -v- Cooke (1978) 128 NLJ 736
1978


Commonwealth
(New Zealand) There can be no boundary agreement unless it constitutes a genuine attempt to resolve a disputed boundary line. A boundary agreement gave one party as much as three quarters of an acre of land. The court thought that the judge was not justified in drawing an inference that the parties had agreed that the position where a fence was placed was the boundary between them.
1 Citers


 
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd -v- Sydney Building Information Centre Pty Ltd [1978] 52 ALJR 392
1978


Commonwealth

1 Citers


 
Mentmore Manufacturing Co Ltd v National Merchandising Manufacturing Co Inc (1978) 89 DLR (3d) 195
1978

Mr Justice Le Dain
Commonwealth, Company
(Federal Court of Appeal of Canada) The court described the question whether, and if so in what circumstances, a director should be liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor as "a very difficult question of policy." Mr Justice Le Dain: "On the one hand, there is the principle that an incorporated company is separate and distinct in law from its shareholders, directors and officers, and it is in the interests of the commercial purposes served by the incorporated enterprise that they should as a general rule enjoy the benefit of limited liability afforded by incorporation. On the other hand, there is the principle that everyone should be answerable for his tortious acts."
1 Citers


 
Walton -v- The Queen [1978] AC 788
1978
PC
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Crime, Commonwealth
The defendant shot someone in a car. His defence was diminished responsibility, but the jury found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to death. The Barbadian statute used precisely the same wording as the English Act of 1957. There had been uncontradicted medical evidence that the defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. It was said that this meant that the jury was bound to accept that the defence had been established and that the trial judge should so have directed the jury. Held. Lord Keith of Kinkel referred to the case law and said: "These cases make it clear that upon an issue of diminished responsibility the jury are entitled and indeed bound to consider not only the medical evidence but the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case. These include the nature of the killing, the conduct of the defendant before, at the time and after it and any history of mental abnormality. It being recognised that the jury on occasion may properly refuse to accept medical evidence, it follows that they must be entitled to consider the quality and weight of that evidence". The jury were entitled to regard the medical evidence as "not entirely convincing". Furthermore, it had before it the evidence of the defendant's conduct before, during and after the killing. He concluded that the jury was entitled to find that the defence of diminished responsibility had not been established, on a balance of probabilities.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Elsey -v- J G Collins Insurance Agencies Limited [1978] 83 DLR 15
1978


Commonwealth, Contract
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the power to strike down a clause as a penalty: "It is now evident that the power to strike down a penalty clause is a blatant interference with the freedom of contract and is designed for the sole purpose of providing relief against oppression for the party having to pay the stipulated sum. It has no place where there is no such oppression."
1 Citers


 
Nor Video Services -v- Ontario Hydro (1978) 84 DLR 3d 221
1978

Robins J
Nuisance, Commonwealth
The court emphasised that interference with the reception of TV signals was part of the law of nuisance.

 
RCA Corporation -v- Custom Cleared Sales Pty Ltd [1978] FSR 576
1978


Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
(Court of Appeal of New South Wales) The court considered the knowledge to be established for copyright infringement saying, "the knowledge which has to be proved is actual but not constructive".
1 Citers


 
The Corporation of The Director of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement -v- Donald Peinkinna and Others (Queensland) [1978] UKPC 1
25 Jan 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Queensland Mines Limited -v- Ernest Roy Hudson and Others (New South Wales) [1978] UKPC 2
6 Feb 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Maharaj -v- Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) [1979] AC 385; [1978] UKPC 3; [1978] 2 All ER 670; [1978] Crim LR 355
27 Feb 1978
PC
Diplock, Hailsham of St Marylebone, Salmon, Keith of Kinkell LL
Commonwealth, Contempt of Court, Damages
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant barrister has been convicted of contempt. The Board had previously found the conviction improper because the basis of the complaint had not been made clear to him. The appellant now sought damages for his imprisonment. Held: The Board referred to the risks of erroneous judicial decisions: "The fundamental human right is not to a legal system that is infallible but to one that is fair". There was no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of a judge of the High Court finding a person guilty of contempt of court and ordering him to be punished for it.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilfred Bhola -v- Seetahal Limited (Trinidad and Tobago) [1978] UKPC 5
27 Feb 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Teo Hong Seng -v- The Public Prosecutor (Singapore) [1978] UKPC 4
27 Feb 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hilborne -v- The Law Society of Singapore; PC 7-Mar-1978 - [1978] 1 WLR 841; [1978] UKPC 6; [1978] 2 All ER 757

 
 Australian Mutal Provident Society -v- Allan and Chaplin; PC 14-Mar-1978 - [1978] UKPC 7
 
The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited -v- Patrick Intermarine Acceptances Limited (In Liquidation) (New South Wales) [1978] UKPC 8
20 Mar 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chow Yee Wa -v- The Kwong Yik (Selangor) Banking Corporation (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 9
3 May 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Chow Wang -v- The Law Society of Singapore (Singapore) [1978] UKPC 12
23 May 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Melwood Units Pty. Limited -v- The Commissioner of Main Roads (Queensland) [1978] UKPC 10
23 May 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Brisbane City Council and Myer Shopping Centres Pty. Ltd -v- Her Majesty'S Attorney General for The State of Queensland (At The Relation of Arthur Thomas Scurr and William Percival Boon) (Queensland) [1978] UKPC 11
23 May 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Donald William Manning -v- Robert James Thompson and Others (New South Wales) [1978] UKPC 25
12 Jun 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Port Swettenham Authority -v- T.W. Wu and Company (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 13
19 Jun 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn. Bhd., Ling Beng Sew, Ling Beng Siong -v- Ling Beng Sung and Cross Appeal (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 14
22 Jun 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mahan Sing S/O Mangal Singh -v- The Government of Malaysia (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 15
22 Jun 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Arthur Allan Thomas (Reasons) -v- The Queen (New Zealand) [1978] UKPC 16
4 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dudley Holder (Reasons) -v- The Queen [1978] UKPC 17
11 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth
(Barbados)
[ Bailii ]
 
Ganga Ram S/O Ram Sarup and Others -v- Grahame & Co. (A Firm) (Fiji) [1978] UKPC 22
18 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
International Investment Limited -v- The Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 20
18 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
American Leaf Blending Co. Sdn. Bhd. -v- Director-General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 18
18 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pang Lin Alias Phang Yoke Lin -v- China Insurance Company Limited (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 19
18 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Syed Omar Bin Abdul Rahman Taha Alsagoff, Chee Kutty S/O Abu Bakar -v- The Government of The State Johore (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 21
18 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ruby Frances Mary Hummerston and Another (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1978] UKPC 23
19 Jul 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Charles Ferguson -v- The Queen (Grenada) [1978] UKPC 26
5 Oct 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Caratti Holding Co. Pty. Ltd, Sergio Caratti -v- Bernardo Zampatti (Western Australia) [1978] UKPC 24
5 Oct 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lai Man Yau -v- The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1978] UKPC 27
16 Nov 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kwan Ping Bong and Kong Ching -v- The Queen [1978] UKPC 28; [1979] 2 WLR 433; [1979] AC 609
16 Nov 1978
PC
Lord Diplock
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(Hong Kong) In reaching its conclusions it is open to the court to draw inferences from primary facts which it finds established by evidence. A court may not, however, infer the existence of some fact which constitutes an essential element of the case unless the inference is compelling i.e. such that no reasonable man would fail to draw it.
Lord Diplock said: "The requirement of proof beyond all reasonable doubt does not prevent a jury from inferring, from the facts that have been the subject of direct evidence before them, the existence of some further fact, such as the knowledge or intent of the accused, which constitutes an essential element of the offence; but the inference must be compelling -- one (and the only one) that no reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Au Pui-Kuen -v- The Attorney General of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) [1978] UKPC 31
4 Dec 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Frederick Daley and Burnett Mcghie (Jamaica) [1978] UKPC 30
4 Dec 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dennis Reid -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1978] UKPC 29
4 Dec 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Cheng Poh Alias Char Mer -v- The Public Prosecutor of Malaysia (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 32
11 Dec 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Muni Deo Bidesi and Others -v- The Public Trustee of Fiji (Fiji) [1978] UKPC 33
11 Dec 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wong Kam-Ming -v- The Queen (Hong Kong) [1978] UKPC 34
20 Dec 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Malaysian Armed Forces Co-Operative Housing -v- Nanyang Development (1966) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 35
20 Dec 1978
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rajendra Prasad -v- State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 3 SCR 78
1979

Krishna Iyer J
Commonwealth, Criminal Sentencing
The court noted the substantial differences in culpability in different murders.
1 Citers


 
Minister of National Revenue -v- Coopers & Lybrand [1979] 1 SCR 495
1979

Dickson J
Commonwealth
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court sought to define the distinctive characteristics of a quasi-judicial act: "… (1) Is there anything in the language in which the function is conferred or in the general context in which it is exercised which suggests that a hearing is contemplated before a decision is reached? (2) Does the decision or order directly or indirectly affect the rights and obligations persons? (3) Is the adversary process involved? (4) Is there an obligation to apply substantive rules to many individual cases rather then, for example, the obligation to implement social and economic policy in a broad sense? These are all factors to be weighed and evaluated, no one of which is necessarily determinative. …In more general terms, one must have regard to the subject matter of the power, the nature of the issue to be decided, and the importance of the determination upon those … affected thereby. … The more important the issue and the more serious the sanctions, the stronger the claim that the power be subject in its exercise to judicial or quasi-judicial process. The existence of something in the nature of a lis inter partes and the presence of procedures, functions and happenings approximating [to] those of a court add weight to (3). But, again, the absence of procedural rules analogous to those of courts will not be fatal to the presence of a duty to act judicially".
1 Citers


 
Patrick -v- Beverley Gardens Development Company Ltd [1979] AC 547
1979
PC

Commonwealth
A resident magistrate (whose summary order for possession of land, made on proceedings commenced by an information, lay at the foundation of arguments about estoppel) had no jurisdiction to decide a question of title to land.
1 Citers


 
The Queen -v- O'Connor (1979-1980) 146 CLR 64
1979

Mason J
Commonwealth, Crime
Mason J cinsidered the defence of intoxication to a criminal charge and held that: "the view is taken that the act charged is voluntary notwithstanding that it might not be ordinarily considered so by reason of the condition of the perpetrator, because his condition proceeds from a voluntary choice made by him. These cases therefore constitute an exception to the general rule of criminal responsibility."
1 Citers


 
Canterbury Pipe Lines -v- The Christchurch Drainage Board (1979) 16 BLR 76
1979

Cooke J
Commonwealth, Construction
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) "In Hatrick the term "fairness" was avoided in the judgments, Richmond J saying that he resisted it partly because of its vagueness and partly because it might be regarded as equivalent to natural justice. . . . In our opinion it should be held in the light of these authorities that in certifying or acting under Clause 13 here the Engineer, though not bound to act judicially in the ordinary sense, was bound to act fairly and impartially. Duties expressed in terms of fairness are being recognised in other fields of law also, such as immigration. Fairness is a broad and even elastic concept, but it is not altogether the worse for that. In relation to persons bound to act judicially fairness requires compliance with the rules of natural justice. In other cases this is not necessarily so."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Melwood Units Pty Ltd v- Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426
1979
PC
Lord Russell of Killowen
Land, Commonwealth, Damages
The board considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of an expressway between Brisbane and Combabah. At the date of compulsory acquisition the project had reached the stage where it was reasonable to assume that a strip of the appellant’s land would be acquired for the expressway. The Land Appeal Court assessed compensation on the basis that the value of the land was to be arrived at by adjusting the price paid by the appellant for it in the light of the proposal. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland took the view that the question of the status and effect of the expressway proposal raised issues of fact upon the valuation but no question of law. Held. A failure to properly apply the Point Gourde principle did disclose a question of law. The Pointe Gourde principle is part of the "common law deriving as a matter of principle from the nature of compensation for resumption or compulsory acquisition." The principle operates both with respect to the consequential enhancement and adverse effect of a scheme for public works upon resumed land. A resuming authority cannot by its project of resumption destroy the potential for the highest and best use of the land and then resume land severing it from part of the previous holding, on the basis that the destroyed potential never existed. The principle remains applicable where planning permission is refused for development for the highest and best use of the whole of the land, because of the apprehended use of part of the land for a public purpose.
Lord Russell of Killowen said: "Under the principle in Point (sic) Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] A.C. 565 the landowner cannot claim compensation to the extent to which the value of his land is enhanced by the very scheme of which the resumption forms an integral part: that principle in their Lordships' opinion operates also in reverse. A resuming authority cannot by its project of resumption destroy the potential of the [land to be resumed] and then resume and sever on the basis that the destroyed potential had never existed."
1 Citers


 
Minister of Home Affairs -v- Fisher [1980] AC 319; [1979] 3 All ER 21; [1979] 2 WLR 889
1979
PC
Lord Wilberforce
Constitutional, Commonwealth
Respect must be paid to the language which has been used in a constitutional statute and to the traditions and usages which have given meaning to that language. It is quite consistent with this, and with the recognition that rules of interpretation may apply, to take as a point of departure for the process of interpretation a recognition of the character and origin of the instrument, and to be guided by the principle of giving full recognition and effect to those fundamental rights and freedoms with a statement of which the Constitution commences.
In the context of fundamental rights in respect of issues of life and death there is required "a generous interpretation" avoiding 'the austerity of tabulated legalism', suitable to give to individuals the full measure of the fundamental rights and freedoms referred to. Human rights drafting uses a "broad and ample style which lays down principles of width and generality."
1 Citers


 
Mootoo -v- Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1979] 1 WLR 1334; [1979] 3 WIR 411
1979
PC

Commonwealth, Constitutional
(Trinidad and Tobago) Proponents of claims that properly passed parliamentary legislation was invalid face a heavy burden.
1 Citers


 
Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (1979) 42 FLR 331
1979

Deane J
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice
(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."
1 Citers



 
 Calvin -v- Carr; PC 15-Jan-1979 - [1979] UKPC 1; [1979] 2 All ER 440; [1980] AC 574; [1979] 2 WLR 755
 
Ramdeo Mahabir -v- Allan Payne (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 2
15 Jan 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Kemrajh Harrikissoon -v- The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 3
15 Jan 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wong Swee Chin (Alias Botak Chin) -v- The Public Prosecutor (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 6
24 Jan 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioner of Inland Revenue -v- Far Exchange Limited (Hong Kong) [1979] UKPC 4
31 Jan 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hock Heng Company Sdn. Berhad -v- The Director-General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 5
31 Jan 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ahmad Goolam Dustagheer -v- The Municipal Corporation of Port-Louis (Mauritius) [1979] UKPC 7
7 Mar 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Union Carbide Singapore Private Limited -v- The Comptroller of Income Tax (Singapore) [1979] UKPC 9
15 Mar 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ludhiana Transport Syndicate and Another -v- Chew Soo Lan and Another (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 11
4 Apr 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Christopher Bernard Thompson -v- Karan Faraonio (Australia) [1979] UKPC 12
4 Apr 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Eng Mee Yong (F) and Others -v- V. Letchumanan (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 13
4 Apr 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gransaul and Ferreira -v- The Queen Unreported, 9th April 1979
9 Apr 1979
PC
Lord Salmon
Crime, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) The two appellants had been said to have been engaged in a common enterprise to rob a van. The first appellant pointed a pistol at the driver and, according to his account, it went off by accident. Held: The appeals were rejected. Lord Salmon: "In the Court of Appeal, the first argument on behalf of the appellants was that the learned trial judge had erred in his summing up in that he had directed the jury that even if the first appellant, whilst engaged in a robbery which involved violence, had accidentally shot the driver, he would in law be guilty of murder. According to this argument, the learned judge ought to have directed the jury that if the shooting had been accidental, they should return a verdict of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal, rightly, in their Lordships' opinion, rejected that argument."
1 Citers


 
Robby Gransaul and Winston Ferreira -v- The Queen (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 14
9 Apr 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ramesh Dipraj Kumar Mootoo -v- Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 16
9 Apr 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pao On and Others -v- Lau Yiu Long and Others [1980] AC 614; [1979] UKPC 2; [1979] UKPC 17
9 Apr 1979
PC
Lord Wilberforces, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon, Lord Scarman
Contract, Commonwealth
(Hong Kong) The board was asked whether a contract of guarantee had been obtained by duress. Held: Lord Scarman said: "Duress, whatever form it takes, is a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent. Their Lordships agree with the observation of Kerr J. in Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v. Skibs A/S Avanti [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293, 336 that in a contractual situation commercial pressure is not enough. There must be present some factor ‘which could in law be regarded as a coercion of his will so as to vitiate his consent.’ This conception is in line with what was said in this Board’s decision in Barton v. Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104, 121 by Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon of Glaisdale - observations with which the majority judgment appears to be in agreement. In determining whether there was a coercion of will such that there was no true consent, it is material to inquire whether the person alleged to have been coerced did or did not protest; whether, at the time he was allegedly coerced into making the contract, he did or did not have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy; whether he was independently advised; and whether after entering the contract he took steps to avoid it. All these matters are, as was recognised in Maskell v. Horner [1915] 3 K.B. 106, relevant in determining whether he acted voluntarily or not."
The Board also considered (obiter) whether english law recognises 'economic duress' and said: "the pressure must be such that the victim's consent to the contract was not a voluntary act on his part. In their Lordships' view, there is nothing contrary to principle in recognising economic duress as a factor which may render a contract voidable, provided always that the basis of such recognition is that it must amount to a coercion of will, which vitiates consent. It must be shown that the payment made or the contract entered into was not a voluntary act."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
G. Abignano Pty. Limited -v- Commissioner for Main Roads (New South Wales) [1979] UKPC 18
24 Apr 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mildred Parris -v- Sookdayah Dookie (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 19
3 May 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lee Chow Meng alias Koh Loh Meng alias Lim Peng Hun -v- The Public Prosecutor; PC 10-May-1979 - [1979] UKPC 20; [1979] Crim LR 465; [1979] 1 WLR 1463
 
The Minister for Home Affairs and The Minister of Education -v- Collins Macdonald Fisher and Eunice Carmeta Fisher (Bermuda) [1979] UKPC 21
14 May 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Ram Narayan S/O Shankar Vijay Kumar S/O Ram Narayan -v- Rishad Hussain Shah S/O Tasaduq Hussain Shah (Fiji) [1979] UKPC 22
5 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
T. Damodaran S/O P.V. Raman -v- Cheo Kuan Him (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 24
11 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanley Abbott -v- The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and Others (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 15
12 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rev. Eric Rotherham (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1979] UKPC 28
25 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of the State of Saint Christopher and Nevis and Anguilla -v- John Joseph Reynolds (Appeal No. 8 of 1978); [1980] AC 607; [1979] UKPC 30
25 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth, Damages

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bali Hai Restaurant Limited -v- Ravendra Kumar and Jaffar Ali (Fiji) [1979] UKPC 27
25 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Muthusamy S/O Tharmalingam -v- Ang Nam Chow (Singapore) [1979] UKPC 29
25 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cheung Chee-Kwong V. The Queen -v- Attorney General V. Cheung Chee-Kwong (Hong Kong) [1979] UKPC 26
25 Jun 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Safi Ullah Khan -v- The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1979] UKPC 31
5 Jul 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Zainal Bin Hashim -v- The Government of Malaysia (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 32
19 Jul 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General -v- Thomas D'Arcy Ryan (Bahamas) [1979] UKPC 33
24 Jul 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Rafia Khanum Malik -v- The General Dental Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Dental Council) [1979] UKPC 23
24 Jul 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dorothy Roulstone -v- O L Panton (Administrator of the Estate of Olive Hinds); PC 27-Jul-1979 - [1979] UKPC 36; [1979] 1 WLR 1465
 
The University of New South Wales -v- Max Cooper & Sons Pty. Limited (New South Wales) [1979] UKPC 38
2 Oct 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilfred Issac -v- Alfred Francis (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 37
2 Oct 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
South Coast Basalt Pty. Ltd and Pioneer Concrete (N.S.W.) Pty. Ltd and Hethking Steamships Pty. Ltd -v- R. W. Miller and Co. Pty. Ltd R. W. Miller and Co. Pty. Ltd (Consolidated Appeal) (New South Wales) [1979] UKPC 39
2 Oct 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Donn Alexander Dickens and Muriel May Dickens -v- Keith James Neylon and Jean Agnes Neylon (New Zealand) [1979] UKPC 25
5 Oct 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Patrick Joseph Mceniff -v- The General Dental Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Dental Council) [1979] UKPC 42
27 Nov 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Station Hotels Berhad -v- Malayan Railway Administration (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 40
27 Nov 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Terrence Thornhill -v- The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 43
27 Nov 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wong Lai Ying and Others -v- Chinachem Investment Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong) [1979] UKPC 41
27 Nov 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association -v- Chai Yen (Married Woman) (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 44
3 Dec 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of Hong Kong -v- Ip Chiu and Another (Hong Kong) [1979] UKPC 45
3 Dec 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mukta Ben (D/O Bhovan) and Another -v- Suva City Council (Fiji) [1979] UKPC 46
12 Dec 1979
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.