Commonwealth - 1970- 1979

Commonwealth and Common Law cases. Cases (typically in the Privy Council), from Hong Kong, New Zealand, Bermuda, Jamaica, Turks and Cacos etc

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 397 cases, and was prepared on 18 May 2014. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.
Regina -v- Donnelly [1970] NZLR 980
1970

Commonwealth, Crime Casemap
1 Citers
(New Zealand)
Public Prosecutor -v- Yuvaraj; PC 1970
Jayasena -v- The Queen [1970] AC 618
1970
PC
Lord Devlin
Crime, Commonwealth Casemap

“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 ….”
James -v- The Queen (1970) 55 Cr App Rep 299
1970
PC
Crime, Commonwealth Casemap
1 Citers
Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd -v- York Products Pty Ltd; PC 1970
Hunter Douglas Australia Pty -v- Perma Blinds; 1970
Donnelly -v- Jackman; 1970
Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd -v- Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136
1970
PC
Lord Diplock, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Constitutional, Commonwealth Casemap
1 Citers
(Hong Kong) The plaintiffs sought a declaration that it would not be lawful for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to pass a particular Bill, together with an injunction to restrain the members of the council from passing it. Held: The board had jurisdiction to entertain the claim, but, by a majority, the action should be dismissed summarily as disclosing no cause of action. Passing a Bill which, on enactment, was repugnant to an Imperial Act of Parliament might by a waste of time for the legislators, but it was not in itself unlawful. The conduct of the Legislative Council could not affect the legal rights of anyone, because the Ordinance would be void and inoperative. "Conduct however much it lies outside the legal power of the actor does not give rise to any cause of action on the part of any person unless it infringes or threatens to infringe that person's legal rights. Such an infringement can only occur when steps are taken to enforce the void Ordinance. It is committed not by the makers of the Ordinance but by those who take steps to enforce it after it has been made."
Regona -v- Sperotto & Salvietti [1970] 1 NSWR 502
1970

Herron CJ
Commonwealth, Crime Casemap

(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."
News Media Ownership v Finlay [1970] NZLR 1089
1970

North P
Constitutional, Commonwealth, Media, Defamation Casemap
1 Citers
(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."
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."
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 ]
Chung Khiaw Bank Limited -v- United Overseas Bank Limited (Singapore) [1970] UKPC 4
19 Jan 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Peter Stanislaus D'Aguiar -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Guyana) [1970] UKPC 3
19 Jan 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Agnes Butler (Reasons) -v- Plantation Versailles and Schoon Ord Estate Limited (Guyana) [1970] UKPC 7
26 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
Link[s] omitted
Harry Rambarran -v- Gurrucharran (Guyana) [1970] UKPC 6
26 Jan 1970
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
N. Rengasamy Pillai -v- The Comptroller of Income Tax (Malaysia) [1970] UKPC 8
2 Mar 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Chang Lan Sheng -v- The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1970] UKPC 10
7 Apr 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 ]
Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Limited V. The Attorney - General of Hong Kong and Another -v- Attorney - General of Hong Kong and Another V. Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Limited (Consolidated Appeals) (Hong Kong) [1970] UKPC 12
15 Apr 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Henry James Sloan -v- General Medical Council (Jcpc) [1970] UKPC 14
30 Apr 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Her Majesty's Attorney-General for Dominica -v- Howell Donald Shillingford [1970] UKPC 15
16 Jun 1970
PC
Commonwealth
(Dominica)
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Leong Bee and Company -v- Ling Nam Rubber Works (Malaysia) [1970] UKPC 19
6 Jul 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue -v- Associated Motorists Petrol Company Limited (New Zealand) [1970] UKPC 24
21 Oct 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue -v- Europa Oil (N.Z.) Limited (New Zealand) [1970] UKPC 25
21 Oct 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Owen Thomas Mangin -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (New Zealand) [1970] UKPC 23
21 Oct 1970
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Eric James -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1970] UKPC 27
2 Nov 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Dolores Hay Mcclelland -v- The Commissioner of Taxation of The Commonwealth of Australia (Australia) [1970] UKPC 26
2 Nov 1970
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Derrick Irving -v- The Queen [1970] UKPC 34
23 Nov 1970
PC
Commonwealth
(Jamaica)
[ Bailii ]
Sigismund Palmer -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1970] UKPC 31
23 Nov 1970
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Palmer -v- Simmonds [1970] UKPC 2
23 Nov 1970
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Edgar Mahinda Fernando -v- The Queen and -v- Lionel Mendis Karunaratne -v- The Queen [1970] UKPC 32
1 Dec 1970
PC
Commonwealth, Crime
(Ceylon)
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Kirschbaum -v- 'Our Voices' Publishing Co; 1971
Pemble -v- The Queen; 1971
The Queen -v- Ireland [1971-72] 126 CLR 321
1971

Barwick CJ
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
1 Citers
(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."
Esquire Nominees Ltd -v- Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 129 CLR 177
1971

Gibbs J
Commonwealth Casemap


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

Hope J
Commonwealth, Land Casemap
1 Citers
(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.
Munnings -v- Hydro-Electric Commission (1971) 45 ALJR 378
1971

Commonwealth

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
Link[s] omitted
Distiller's Co (Biochemicals) Ltd -v- Thompson; PC 19-Jan-1971
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 Casemap

(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."
[ SCC ]
The Argosy Company Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) -v- The Commissioner for Inland Revenue (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 5
8 Feb 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
R. R. Chelliah Brothers -v- Employees Provident Fund Board (Malaysia) [1971] UKPC 4
8 Feb 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Francesca The Wife of Michele Aquilina -v- Doctor Vincenzo Dpasquale (Malta) [1971] UKPC 6
10 Feb 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Caruppiah Sandanam -v- Mohamed Ismail Mohamed Jamaldeen and Others (Ceylon) [1971] UKPC 7
23 Feb 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
The Attorney General of Hong Kong -v- Pat Chiuk-Wah and Others (Hong Kong) [1971] UKPC 9
22 Mar 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Guiana Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited -v- The Commissioner for Inland Revenue (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 13
3 May 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Rosaline Antigua -v- Issac Boxwill (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 14
3 May 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Ramoo S/O Eruapan -v- Gan Soo Swee and Another (Malaysia At Singapore) [1971] UKPC 16
4 May 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Olive Casey Jaundoo In Her Capacity As Executrix of The Estate of William Arnold Jaundoo -v- The Attorney General of Guyana (Guyana) [1971] UKPC 15
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
Link[s] omitted
Richard Wordsworth Barker -v- General Medical Council (Reasons) [1971] UKPC 21
21 Jun 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Bajaj Textiles Limited -v- Gian Singh & Company Limited (Malaysia At Singapore) [1971] UKPC 19
28 Jun 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
R. Sambasivam -v- The Public Services Commission and Another (Malaysia) [1971] UKPC 20
28 Jun 1971
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Leith Mcdonald Ratten -v- The Queen (Victoria) [1971] UKPC 23
1 Jul 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Saw Choo Theng and Another -v- Sungei Biak Tin Nines Limited (Malaysia At Kuala Lumpur) [1971] UKPC 22
5 Jul 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Rupert Anderson -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1971] UKPC 25
13 Jul 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Andrew Skeete -v- Leonard John [1971] UKPC 24
14 Jul 1971
PC
Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago)
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Felton -v- Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367
2 Sep 1971

Justice Windeyer
Commonwealth, Wills and Probate
1 Citers
(Australia) The court was concerned to interpret the phrase "arising under any laws made by the Parliament"
[ Austlii ]
Tak Ming Company Limited -v- Yee Sang Metal Supplies Company; PC 05-Oct-1971
The Government of The State of Penang and Another -v- Beng Hong Oon and Others (Malaysia) [1971] UKPC 29
5 Oct 1971
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Abdool Latiff -v- Tani Peraud [1971] UKPC 32
6 Oct 1971
PC
Commonwealth
(Guyana)
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Elizabeth Schaefer -v- Ellen Elizabeth Schuhmann and Others (New South Wales) [1971] UKPC 36
7 Dec 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
Link[s] omitted
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 Casemap
1 Citers
(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.
Link[s] omitted
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.
Jablonowski -v- Jablonowski (1972) 28 DLR (3d) 440
1972

Lerner J
Commonwealth, Family Casemap
1 Cites

(Ontario High Court) The petitioner had met both the residence and animus requirements despite having entered Canada illegally.
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.’”
Teck Corporation Ltd -v- Millar; 1972
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.
Josephine Mary Aloysia Morais -v- Francesca Victoria (Ceylon) [1972] UKPC 1
11 Jan 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Loh Boon Siew -v- Chin Kim and Another (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 2
8 Feb 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Maria Staska -v- General Motors-Holden'S Proprietary Limited (Australia) [1972] UKPC 4
28 Mar 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
The New India Assurance Company Ltd -v- Yeo Beng Chow Alias Yeo Beng Chong (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 6
28 Mar 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Tay Koh Yat Bus Company Limited -v- Chau Chong Cher and Others (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 3
28 Mar 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Winifred Adele Egan -v- City of Northcote (Victoria) [1972] UKPC 5
28 Mar 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Ingeborg Gerda Pettsch -v- Frederick Hugh Kennedy and Others (New South Wales) [1972] UKPC 7
28 Mar 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Arnold Malbre & Co. Ltd. -v- Kingston Pilotage Authority (Jamaica) [1972] UKPC 11
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 ]
Graham Edwards Alias David Christopher Murray -v- The Queen (Hong Kong) [1972] UKPC 14
27 Jun 1972
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Sir Neville Ashenheim -v- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Jamaica) [1972] UKPC 13
27 Jun 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Edwards -v- Regina [1972] UKPC 1
27 Jun 1972
PC
Commonwealth, Crime
(Hong Kong)
Link[s] omitted
Willoughby Arthur Vickers-Davis -v- The Administrator General (Jamaica) [1972] UKPC 15
17 Jul 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Bookers Stores Limited -v- Mustapha Ally (Guyana) [1972] UKPC 16
18 Jul 1972
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
The Cross-Harbour Tunnel Company Limited -v- The Collector of Stamp Revenue (Hong Kong) [1972] UKPC 17
26 Jul 1972
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
The Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue -v- Alan Richard Knight (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 18
26 Jul 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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; PC 07-Nov-1972
Paul Wallis Furnell -v- The Whangarei High Schools Board (New Zealand) [1972] UKPC 22
13 Nov 1972
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Tak Ming Company Limited -v- Yee Sang Metal Supplies Company (Hong Kong); PC 11-Dec-1972
Philip Farquharson -v- The Queen (Bahamas) [1972] UKPC 24
19 Dec 1972
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Tampion -v- Anderson [1973] VR 715
1973

Commonwealth, Torts - Other Casemap
1 Cites

(Full Court of Victoria)
In re Wellington Publishing Company Ltd; 1973
Canadian Aero Service Ltd -v- O'Malley; 1973
James Subbaiya -v- Paul Nagaiya (Fiji) [1973] UKPC 2
15 Jan 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Texaco Antillies Limited -v- Dorothy Kernochan and Another (Bahamas) [1973] UKPC 1
15 Jan 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 ]
Arthur Francis -v- The Chief of Police (St. Christopher and Nevis and Anguilla) [1973] UKPC 4
5 Feb 1973
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Western Stores Limited -v- The Council of The City of Orange (New South Wales) [1973] UKPC 5
5 Feb 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Emma The Widow of Erik W. Gollcher -v- Walter Baldacchino and Others (Malta) [1973] UKPC 9
7 Mar 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
New Zealand Netherlands Society Oranje Incorporated -v- Laurentius Cornelis Kuys and Another (New Zealand) [1973] UKPC 7
7 Mar 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Pegang Mining Company Limited -v- Choong Sam and Others (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 8
7 Mar 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Christopher Russell Lowery -v- The Queen (Victoria) [1973] UKPC 10
9 Apr 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Sisir Kumar Datta -v- The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1973] UKPC 11
11 Apr 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
The Public Prosecutor -v- Fan Yew Teng (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 12
2 May 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Bank Negara Indonesia -v- Philip Hoalim (Singapore) [1973] UKPC 14
14 May 1973
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Kirpalani'S Limited -v- Gerald Eckel (Trinidad & Tobago) [1973] UKPC 17
19 Jun 1973
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Government of Malaysia -v- Lee Hock Ning (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 15
19 Jun 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Adolphus Henry Vaudin -v- Adolphus John Hamon and Others (Guernsey) [1973] UKPC 16
19 Jun 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 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
1 Citers
(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."
Link[s] omitted
Stenhouse Australia Limited -v- Marshall William Davidson Phillips (New South Wales) [1973] UKPC 20
2 Oct 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Chan Hon-Ton (Reasons) -v- The Queen (Hong Kong) [1973] UKPC 30
31 Oct 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
N. Mahadevan (Lately An Infant But Now of Full Age) -v- K. Anandarajan and Others; PC 22-Nov-1973
The Government of Federation Malaysia -v- Calister Lionel (Malaysia) [1973] UKPC 26
22 Nov 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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

1 Citers
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."
[ 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
Link[s] omitted
Alexander Barton -v- Alexander Ewan Armstrong and Others (New South Wales) [1973] UKPC 27
5 Dec 1973
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Paxhaven Holdings Ltd -v- Attorney-General [1974] 2 NZLR 185
1974

Mahon J
Commonwealth, Nuisance

1 Citers
(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"
Lowery -v- The Queen [1974] AC 85
1974
PC
Morris L
Crime, Evidence, Commonwealth Casemap
1 Citers
(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."
Howard Smith Limited -v- Ampol Petroleum Limited; PC 1974
Rees -v- Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180
1974

Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, P
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice
1 Citers
(New Zealand) The court discussed the indemnity given to witnesses: "The protection should not be given any wider application than is absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of justice …" and "In the interests of the judicial process a witness should not be exposed to the risk of having his or her evidence challenged in another process."
Lower Hutt City Council -v- Bank [1974] 1 NZLR 545
1974

McCarthy P
Commonwealth, Local Government
1 Citers
(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 ... "
Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Brooks [1974] AC 862
1974
PC
Lord Diplock
Commonwealth, Crime Casemap
1 Citers
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of drugs. Held: "In the ordinary use of the word "possession", one has in one's possession whatever is, to one's knowledge, physically in one's custody or under one's physical control."
The Geelong Harbour Trust Commissioners -v- Gibb Bright & Co. (A Firm) (Australia) [1974] UKPC 2
4 Feb 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Borambil Pty. Limited -v- Frances O'Carroll (New South Wales) [1974] UKPC 1
4 Feb 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 Casemap
1 Citers
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... "
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Wishart Brooks (Jamaica) [1974] UKPC 8
3 Apr 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Leary Walker (Jamaica) [1974] UKPC 7
3 Apr 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Santlal Son of Ram Autar -v- South Pacific Sugar Mill Limited and Another (Figi) [1974] UKPC 11
6 May 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Gian Singh & Company Limited -v- Banque De L'Indochine (Singapore) [1974] UKPC 10
6 May 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 Ltd -v- Ahmad (Singapore) [1974] UKPC 2
20 May 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Keppel Bus Company Limited -v- Sa'Ad Bin Ahmad (Singapore) [1974] UKPC 15
20 May 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Hitam Bin Abdullah and Another -v- Kok Foong Yee (F) and Another (Malaysia) [1974] UKPC 14
20 May 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
John Bertram Goddard -v- Laurent John (Saint Lucia) [1974] UKPC 21
22 Jul 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 ]
Jacqueline Awon -v- Elsie Allard (Trinidad and Tobago) [1974] UKPC 22
22 Jul 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Cormack -v- Cope (1974) 131 CL R 432
5 Aug 1974

Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ
Commonwealth, Constitutional Casemap

(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.
[ 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.
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
David See Chai Lam and Another -v- The House of Dior Limited (Hong Kong) [1974] UKPC 26
23 Oct 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd. and Another -v- Wyong Shire Council (New South Wales) [1974] UKPC 28
24 Oct 1974
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Peter Thomas Fahey -v- M.S.D. Spiers Limited (New Zealand) [1974] UKPC 27
24 Oct 1974
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Paramount Betting Limited -v- The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another [1974] UKPC 29
13 Nov 1974
PC
Commonwealth
(Jamaica)
Link[s] omitted
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)
Link[s] omitted
General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd -v- Stoyakovich [1975] Qd R 352
1975

Commonwealth, Equity, Banking
1 Citers
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.
Taylor -v- Attorney-General; 1975
Maridakis -v- Kouvaris; 1975
In Re Irving; 1975
Attorney General -v- Antigua Times Ltd [1975] 3 All ER 81; [1975] 3 WLR 232
1975
PC
Commonwealth Casemap

The Board should not seek to determine questions not directly raised in the appeal before it.
Baker -v- The Queen; PC 1975
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
Link[s] omitted
Amoco Australia Pty. Limited -v- Rocca Bros. Motor Engineering Co. Pty. Limited (South Australia) [1975] UKPC 7
27 Jan 1975
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Edward Francis Nakhala -v- Her Majesty The Queen (New Zealand) [1975] UKPC 5
27 Jan 1975
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Rose Hall Limited -v- Elizabeth Lovejoy Reeves (Jamaica) [1975] UKPC 4
27 Jan 1975
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Mrs. B. Pim and Others (Pastoral Measure) (Reasons) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1975] UKPC 10
20 Mar 1975
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Tractors Malaysia Limited -v- Tio Chee Hing (Malaysia) [1975] UKPC 11
10 Apr 1975
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Chop Seng Heng (Sued As A Firm) (Fourth Defendants) -v- Thevannasan S/O Sinnapan (First Defendants), Sing Cheong Hin Lorry Transport Co. (Sued As A Firm) (Second Defendants), Pang Cheow Yow (Plaintiff) (Malaysia) [1975] UKPC 13
6 May 1975
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
N. A. Coxwell-Rogers and Another (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1975] UKPC 14
7 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
Link[s] omitted
Eaton Baker and Another -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1975] UKPC 16
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 ]
Sidney Boyd Ashton and Another -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (New Zealand) [1975] UKPC 18
9 Jul 1975
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Cession Lal and Another -v- The Queen (Fiji) [1975] UKPC 20
30 Oct 1975
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Hinds and other -v- The Queen; Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Jackson, attorney General of Jamaica (Intervenor) [1976] 1 All ER 1976; [1976] 2 WLR 366; (1975) 119 SJ 864; [1976] Crim LR 124; [1977] AC 195
1 Dec 1975
PC
Diplock L, Dilhorne Viscount (Dissenting), Simon of Glaisdale L, Edmund-Davies, Fraser of Tullybelton L (dissenting)
Constitutional, Commonwealth, Crime
1 Cites

The Gun Court Act 1974 of Jamaica established special courts at different levels to deal with varieties of crimes involving guns. There was provision for hearings to be held in camera. Certain offences carried mandatory life sentences reviewable only by a panel appointed by the Governor-General. The appellants each appealed convictions by the courts complaining that Magistrates had had assigned to them cases properly only triable by High Court judges, that the system infringed the duty to provide an open system of trial, and that the review panels included non-judiciary exercising judicial duties, infringing the doctrine of separation of powers. Held: Though the courts themselves were validly constituted, certain powers which under the Constitution were reserved to High Court judges had been wrongly assigned to magistrates. The provisions allowing hearings in camera were valid, since there was sufficient reason in the need for public safety to support them. The review panel effectively set terms of imprisonment, a function which was assigned under the Constitution to the judiciary. The creation of the panel was an attempt by the executive to exercise the duties of the judiciary, and was unconstitutional. Diplock L: “In the field of punishment for criminal offences, the application of the basic principle of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers that is implicit in a constitution on the Westminster model makes it necessary to consider how the power to determine the length and the character of a sentence which imposes restrictions on the personal liberty of the offender is distributed under these three heads of power. ... In the exercise of its legislative power, Parliament may, if it thinks fit, prescribe a fixed punishment to be inflicted upon all offenders found guilty of the defined offence - as, for example, capital punishment for the crime of murder. Or it may prescribe a range of punishments ... What Parliament cannot do, consistently with the separation of powers, is to transfer from the judiciary to any executive body whose members are not appointed under Chapter VII of the Constitution, a discretion to determine the severity of the punishment to be inflicted upon an individual member of a class of offenders.” Elements of the statute providing for mandatory life sentences to be imposed by lower courts were void, but the provisions were severable, and the remainder were valid for superior courts. In each case the convictions stood, but the cases were remitted to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica for re-sentence. '[constitutions] differ fundamentally in their nature from ordinary legislation . . . They embody what is in substance an agreement reached between representatives of the various shades of political opinion in the state as to the structure of the organs of government through which the plenitude of the sovereign power of the state is to be exercised.' The Constitution established a regime which provided, in respect of the higher Jamaican judiciary "that their independence from political pressure by Parliament or by the executive in the exercise of their judicial functions shall be assured by granting to them such degree of security of tenure in their office as is justified by the importance of the jurisdiction that they exercise." This independence was assured by the provisions enacting that "They can only be removed from office upon the advice of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council in the United Kingdom given on a reference made upon the recommendation of a tribunal of inquiry consisting of persons who hold or have held high judicial office in some part of the Commonwealth."
(Jamaica) Gun Courts Act 1974
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
Link[s] omitted
Peter Fraser Haggart -v- General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1975] UKPC 24
8 Dec 1975
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Peter Ziderman -v- General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1975] UKPC 26
8 Dec 1975
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Moorhouse -v- University of New South Wales [1976] RPC 151
1976

Gibbs J
Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
1 Citers
(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."
Security Trust Co -v- The Royal Bank of Canada; PC 1976
Motherwell -v- Motherwell; 1976
Surjit Lal Chhabda -v- Commissioner of Income Tax; 1976
Customglass Boats Limited -v- Salthouse Brothers Limited; 1976
New Zealand Institute of Agriculture Science Inc -v- Ellesmere County; 1976
Allan J Panozza & Co Pty Ltd -v- Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd [1976] 2 NSWLR 192
1976

Street CJ
Commonwealth, Damages Casemap

(New South Wales A statutory limitation on damages deemed to be incorporated into a contract of carriage is "an express limitation upon the substantive liabilities."
Europa Oil (N.Z.) Limited -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (And Cross Appeal) (New Zealand) [1976] UKPC 1
13 Jan 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Chang -v- Registrar of Titles; 11-Feb-1976
Gladys Sarah Becker -v- The Corporation of The City of Marion and Another (Australia) [1976] UKPC 6
2 Mar 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 ]
Najar Singh -v- The Government of Malaysia and Another (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 7
8 Mar 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
The Trustees of Seramco Limited Superannuation Fund -v- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Jamaica) [1976] UKPC 8
8 Mar 1976
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Peretual Trustee Company Limited -v- The Commissioner of Stamp Duties (New South Wales) [1976] UKPC 10
5 Apr 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
The Commissioner of Stamp Duties -v- Bone and Others; PC 05-Apr-1976
Junior Cottle and Lorraine Laidlow -v- The Queen (Saint Vincent) [1976] UKPC 12
5 Apr 1976
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Hannaford & Barton Ltd. -v- Polaroid Corporation (New Zealand) [1976] UKPC 9
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
Link[s] omitted
Registrar of Titles, Johore, Johore Bahru -v- Temenggong Securities Ltd. and Another (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 13
27 Apr 1976
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
W. J. Gant (Pastoral Measure 1968) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1976] UKPC 15
20 May 1976
PC
Lord Wilbeforce, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Commonwealth
It was proposed that two parishes be merged using the 1968 Measure.
[ Bailii ]
Ram Shankar S/O Pachu -v- Parekh Holings Ltd. (Fiji) [1976] UKPC 16
24 May 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Lee Kee Choong -v- Empat Nombor Ekok (N.S.) Sdn. Bhd. & Others (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 21
26 Jul 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Santo Oteri and Gaetano Oter -v- The Queen (Australia) [1976] UKPC 25
4 Oct 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Philip Hoalim Jr. and Another -v- The State Commissioner Penang (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 24
5 Oct 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Dorothy Haldane -v- George Christopher Haldane (New Zealand) [1976] UKPC 27
11 Oct 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Maharaj -v- Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago; PC 11-Oct-1976
J. Lumley and Others (Pastoral Measure 1968) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1976] UKPC 28
15 Nov 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
J. R. Brown (Pastoral Measure 1968) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1976] UKPC 29
16 Nov 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
The Collector of Land Revenue Singapore -v- Philip Hoalim (And Cross-Appeal) (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 32
17 Nov 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
K. G. Toombs and Another (Pastoral Measure 1968) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1976] UKPC 31
17 Nov 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Goh Leng Kang -v- Teng Swee Lin and Others (Singapore) [1976] UKPC 30
17 Nov 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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".
[ Austlii ]
Menaka Wife of M. Deivarayan -v- Lum Kum Chum (Malaysia) [1976] UKPC 33
21 Dec 1976
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Amratlal Jamnadas (S/O Jamnadas) -v- Gulab Ben (D/O Ratanji) (Fiji) [1976] UKPC 18
21 Dec 1976
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
The Queen in Right of Alberta -v- Canadian Transport Commission; 1977
Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd -v- Imperial Oil (1977) 69 DLR (3d) 558
1977

de Grandpre J
Commonwealth, Insurance, Construction
1 Citers
(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."
Geyer -v- Downs and another; 1977
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 ]
The Government of Malaysia -v- Iznan Bin Osman (Malaysia) [1977] UKPC 2
22 Mar 1977
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Henri Lincoln and Others -v- The Governor-General of Mauritius and Others (Mauritius) [1977] UKPC 3
22 Mar 1977
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Rita Bennett -v- Paramount Dry Cleaners Limited (Jamaica) [1977] UKPC 5
31 Mar 1977
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Cumberland Holdings Limited -v- Washington H. Soul Pattison and Company Limited (New South Wales) [1977] UKPC 4
31 Mar 1977
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Nancy Sanchez- Burke (Jamaica) [1977] UKPC 6
19 Apr 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
Link[s] omitted
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Donald White (Jamaica) [1977] UKPC 8
28 Apr 1977
PC
Commonwealth
[ 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 ]
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
Link[s] omitted
B.P. Refinery (Westernport) Proprietary Limited -v- Shire of Hastings (Victoria) [1977] UKPC 13
27 Jul 1977
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
David Adolphus Walton -v- The Queen (Barbados) [1977] UKPC 16
6 Oct 1977
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Mrs. D. Medcalf and Others -v- The Church Commissioners (Pastoral Measure 1968) [1977] UKPC 20
14 Nov 1977
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Ewen Neil Ross -v- John Samuel Lester Henderson (New Zealand) [1977] UKPC 19
15 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
Link[s] omitted
and Benjamin Patrick -v- Beverley Gardens Development Company Ltd. and Another (Jamaica) [1977] UKPC 22
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
Link[s] omitted
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd -v- Sydney Building Information Centre Pty Ltd [1978] 52 ALJR 392
1978

Commonwealth

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

Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
1 Citers
(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".
Andrews -v- Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd [1978] 2 SCR 229
1978

Dickson J
Commonwealth, Damages Casemap
1 Citers
(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."
Chernesky -v- Armadale Publishers Ltd (1978) 90 DLR (3rd) 321
1978

Lloyd LJ
Commonwealth, Defamation Casemap

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

Mr Justice Le Dain
Commonwealth, Company Casemap
1 Citers
(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."
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.
Penfold and Penfold -v- Cooke (1978) 128 NLJ 736
1978

Commonwealth Casemap
1 Citers
(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.
Brisbane City Council -v- Attorney General for Queensland; PC 1978
Stopforth -v- Goyer; 1978
Bowlay Logging Limited -v- Domtar Limited; 1978
Walton -v- The Queen [1978] AC 788
1978
PC
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Crime, Commonwealth

1 Citers
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.
Elsey -v- J G Collins Insurance Agencies Limited; 1978
The Corporation of The Director of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement -v- Donald Peinkinna and Others (Queensland) [1978] UKPC 1
25 Jan 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Queensland Mines Limited -v- Ernest Roy Hudson and Others (New South Wales) [1978] UKPC 2
6 Feb 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Wilfred Bhola -v- Seetahal Limited (Trinidad and Tobago) [1978] UKPC 5
27 Feb 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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

1 Citers
(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.
Link[s] omitted
Teo Hong Seng -v- The Public Prosecutor (Singapore) [1978] UKPC 4
27 Feb 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Kenneth Edward Hilborne -v- The Law Society of Singapore (Singapore) [1978] UKPC 6
7 Mar 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Australian Mutal Provident Society -v- Peter Thomas Allan Lancelot Chaplin (South Australia) [1978] UKPC 7
14 Mar 1978
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
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
Link[s] omitted
Melwood Units Pty. Limited -v- The Commissioner of Main Roads (Queensland) [1978] UKPC 10
23 May 1978
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Chan Chow Wang -v- The Law Society of Singapore (Singapore) [1978] UKPC 12
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
Link[s] omitted
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)
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
American Leaf Blending Co. Sdn. Bhd. -v- Director-General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 18
18 Jul 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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 ]
Pang Lin Alias Phang Yoke Lin -v- China Insurance Company Limited (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 19
18 Jul 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Kwan Ping Bong and Kong Ching -v- The Queen; PC 16-Nov-1978
Lai Man Yau -v- The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1978] UKPC 27
16 Nov 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Dennis Reid -v- The Queen (Jamaica) [1978] UKPC 29
4 Dec 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Frederick Daley and Burnett Mcghie (Jamaica) [1978] UKPC 30
4 Dec 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Au Pui-Kuen -v- The Attorney General of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) [1978] UKPC 31
4 Dec 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Malaysian Armed Forces Co-Operative Housing -v- Nanyang Development (1966) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) [1978] UKPC 35
20 Dec 1978
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (1979) 42 FLR 331
1979

Deane J
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice Casemap

(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."
Melwood Units Pty Ltd v- Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426
1979
PC
Lord Russell of Killowen
Land, Commonwealth, Damages
1 Citers
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."
Patrick -v- Beverley Gardens Development Company Ltd [1979] AC 547
1979
PC
Commonwealth Casemap

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.
Mootoo -v- Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1979] 1 WLR 1334; [1979] 3 WIR 411
1979
PC
Commonwealth, Constitutional Casemap
1 Citers
(Trinidad and Tobago) Proponents of claims that properly passed parliamentary legislation was invalid face a heavy burden.
Minister of Home Affairs -v- Fisher [1980] AC 319; [1979] 3 All ER 21; [1979] 2 WLR 889
1979
PC
Lord Wilberforce
Constitutional, Commonwealth Casemap
1 Citers
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."
Canterbury Pipe Lines -v- The Christchurch Drainage Board (1979) 16 BLR 76
1979

Cooke J
Commonwealth, Construction Casemap

1 Citers
(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."
The Queen -v- O'Connor (1979-1980) 146 CLR 64
1979

Mason J
Commonwealth, Crime Casemap
1 Citers
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."
Minister of National Revenue -v- Coopers & Lybrand [1979] 1 SCR 495
1979

Dickson J
Commonwealth Casemap
1 Citers
(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".
Rajendra Prasad -v- State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 3 SCR 78
1979

Krishna Iyer J
Commonwealth, Criminal Sentencing Casemap
1 Citers
The court noted the substantial differences in culpability in different murders.
Kemrajh Harrikissoon -v- The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 3
15 Jan 1979
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Calvin -v- Carr [1979] UKPC 1; [1979] 2 All ER 440; [1980] AC 574
15 Jan 1979
PC
Lord Wilberforce
Commonwealth Casemap
1 Citers
It was argued that a decision of the stewards of the Australian Jockey Club was void for having been made in breach of natural justice. Lord Wilberforce said: "This argument led necessarily into the difficult area of what is void and what is voidable, as to which some confusion exists in the authorities. Their Lordships opinion would be, if it became necessary to fix on one or other of these expressions, that a decision made contrary to natural justice is void, but that, until it is so declared by a competent body or court, it may have some effect, or existence, in law. This condition might be better expressed by saying that the decision is invalid or vitiated. In the present context, where the question is whether an appeal lies, the impugned decision cannot be considered as totally void, in the sense of being legally non-existent. So to hold would be wholly unreal."
[ Bailii ]
Ramdeo Mahabir -v- Allan Payne (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 2
15 Jan 1979
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Calvin -v- Carr and Others [1979] UKPC 1
15 Jan 1979
PC
Commonwealth
(New South Wales)
[ Bailii ]
Wong Swee Chin (Alias Botak Chin) -v- The Public Prosecutor (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 6
24 Jan 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Hock Heng Company Sdn. Berhad -v- The Director-General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 5
31 Jan 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Commissioner of Inland Revenue -v- Far Exchange Limited (Hong Kong) [1979] UKPC 4
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 ]
Eng Mee Yong (F) and Others -v- V. Letchumanan (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 13
4 Apr 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Ludhiana Transport Syndicate and Another -v- Chew Soo Lan and Another (Malaysia) [1979] UKPC 11
4 Apr 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Ernest Ferdinand Perez De Lasala -v- Hannelore De Lasala (Hong Kong) [1979] UKPC 10
4 Apr 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Christopher Bernard Thompson -v- Karan Faraonio (Australia) [1979] UKPC 12
4 Apr 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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."
Pao On and Others -v- Lau Yiu Long and Others; PC 09-Apr-1979
Ramesh Dipraj Kumar Mootoo -v- Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 16
9 Apr 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Robby Gransaul and Winston Ferreira -v- The Queen (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 14
9 Apr 1979
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
G. Abignano Pty. Limited -v- Commissioner for Main Roads (New South Wales) [1979] UKPC 18
24 Apr 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Mildred Parris -v- Sookdayah Dookie (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 19
3 May 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Stanley Abbott -v- The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and Others (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 15
12 Jun 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Bali Hai Restaurant Limited -v- Ravendra Kumar and Jaffar Ali (Fiji) [1979] UKPC 27
25 Jun 1979
PC
Commonwealth
[ Bailii ]
Rev. Eric Rotherham (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners (Jcpc) [1979] UKPC 28
25 Jun 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
Safi Ullah Khan -v- The General Medical Council (The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council) [1979] UKPC 31
5 Jul 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
The University of New South Wales -v- Max Cooper & Sons Pty. Limited (New South Wales) [1979] UKPC 38
2 Oct 1979
PC
Commonwealth
Link[s] omitted
Wilfred Issac -v- Alfred Francis (Trinidad and Tobago) [1979] UKPC 37
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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
Link[s] omitted
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 ]