Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


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















Commonwealth - From: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 259 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
1985

Deane J, Mason J
Equity, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) The idea of conscience is too vague a notion to found the principles of equity, it would open the door to "idiosyncratic notions of fairness and justice" and "That property was acquired, in pursuance of the consensual arrangement between the parties, to be held and developed in accordance with that arrangement. The contributions which each party is entitled to have repaid to her or him were made for, or in connexion with, its purchase or development. The collapse of the commercial venture and the failure of the personal relationship jointly combined to lead to a situation in which each party is entitled to insist upon realization of the asset, repayment of her or his contribution and distribution of any surplus."

Deane J drew attention to the nature and function of constructive trusts in the common law: "The fact that the constructive trust remains predominantly remedial does not, however, mean that it represents a medium for the indulgence of idiosyncratic notions of fairness and justice. As an equitable remedy, it is available only when warranted by established equitable principles or by the legitimate processes of legal reasoning, by analogy, induction and deduction, starting from the conceptual foundations of such principles . . Under the law of this country - as, I venture to think under the present law of England . . proprietary rights fall to be governed by principles of law and not by some mix of judicial discretion, subjective views about which party 'ought to win' . . and the 'formless void' of individual moral opinion." and "Under the law of [Australia]—as, I venture to think, under the present law of England—proprietary rights fall to be governed by principles of law and not by some mix of judicial discretion, subjective views about which party 'ought to win' and 'the formless void of individual moral opinion'."
1 Citers


 
Bell v Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica [1985] 2 All ER 585; [1985] AC 937
1985
PC
Templeman L
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice, Constitutional
The appellant had been sentenced to life for firearms offences. After a successfully appeal, a retrial was ordered. More than two years had passed, after a previous attempt failed for absent witnesses. Held: Referred to the US decision in Barker and Wingo (1972) 407 US 514, invoking the sixth amendment - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....") which identified four factors in assessing whether a defendant had been deprived of his constitutional rights: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons given by the prosecution to justify the delay; (3) the responsibility of the accused for asserting his rights; and (4) prejudice to the accused. "Their Lordships acknowledge the relevance and importance of the four factors lucidly expanded and comprehensively discussed in Barker v Wingo. Their Lordships also acknowledge the desirability of applying the same or similar criteria to any constitution, written or unwritten, which protects an accused from oppression by delay in criminal proceedings. The weight to be attached to each factor must, however, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case." and "It was argued on behalf of the respondents, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General, that the applicant was able to obtain redress by waiting until his retrial, ordered for 11 May 1982, and then submitting to the Gun Court at the commencement of the retrial that the proceeding should be dismissed on the grounds that in the events which had happened a retrial would be an abuse of the process of the court. Their Lordships cannot accept this submission. If the constitutional rights of the applicant had been infringed by failing to try him within a reasonable time, he should not be obliged to prepare for a retrial which must necessarily be convened to take place after an unreasonable time."
"Their Lordships accept the submission of the respondents that, in giving effect to the rights granted by sections 13 and 20 of the Constitution of Jamaica, the courts of Jamaica must balance the fundamental right of the individual to a fair trial within a reasonable time against the public interest in the attainment of justice in the context of the prevailing system of legal administration and the prevailing economic, social and cultural conditions to be found in Jamaica. The administration of justice in Jamaica is faced with a problem, not unknown in other countries, of disparity between the demand for legal services and the supply of legal services. Delays are inevitable. The solution is not necessarily to be found in an increase in the supply of legal services by the appointment of additional judges, the creation of new courts and the qualification of additional lawyers. Expansion of legal services necessarily depends on the financial resources available for that purpose. Moreover an injudicious attempt to expand an existing system of courts, judges and practitioners, could lead to deterioration in the quality of the justice administered and to the conviction of the innocent and the acquittal of the guilty. The task of considering these problems falls on the legislature of Jamaica, mindful of the provisions of the Constitution and mindful of the advice tendered from time to time by the judiciary, the prosecution service and the legal profession of Jamaica. The task of deciding whether and what periods of delay explicable by the burdens imposed on the courts by the weight of criminal causes suffice to contravene the rights of a particular accused to a fair hearing within a reasonable time falls upon the courts of Jamaica and in particular on the members of the Court of Appeal who have extensive knowledge and experience of conditions in Jamaica. In the present case the Full Court stated that a delay of two years in the Gun Court is a current average period of delay in cases in which there are no problems for witnesses. The Court of Appeal did not demur. Their Lordships accept the accuracy of the statement and the conclusion, implicit in the statement, that in present circumstances in Jamaica, such delay does not by itself infringe the rights of an accused to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. No doubt the courts and the prosecution authorities recognise the need to take all reasonable steps to reduce the period of delay wherever possible."
1 Citers


 
Kalamazoo (Aust) Pty v Compact Business Systems Ltd (1985) 5 IPR 213; (1985) 84 FLR 101
1985

Thomas J
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property
(Supreme Court of Queensland) The case concerned the copying of a collection of accounting forms which when used together made up an accounting system. Some of the forms were intended to be used in a peg-board system in which writing on the top form was reproduced on the lower forms in a stack, the forms being held in the correct register by a system of punched holes, pegs and a clamp. Various collections of forms were sold by the plaintiffs, each collection being adapted for a particular purpose. Held: Layout, presentation and appearance may be the subject of copyright protection. A literary work is one that gives “information, instruction or pleasure in the form of literary enjoyment” and that is not a question of literary merit. Each collection or group of forms, designed to be used with each other, was entitled to protection as a compilation of the constituent forms even though the constituent forms were not wholly literary.
Copyright Act 1911
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Miller v The Queen (1985) 24 DLR (4th) 9
1985


Commonwealth, Prisons, Human Rights
(Canadian Supreme Court) In a case of a prisoner where solitary confinement is unlawfully and unjustly superimposed upon his prison sentence the added solitary confinement can amount to "prison within a prison": it is capable of constituting a material deprivation of residual liberty.
1 Citers



 
 Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd; 1985 - [1985] 2 NZLR 129
 
Auerbach v Beck (1985) 6 NSWLR 424
1985

Powell J
Commonwealth, Land
(New South Wales) An easement does not confer exclusive possession to land. An easement may include a right to extract smells from cooking. As to easements of necessity; Powell J said: "it is open to the court to imply into a conveyance or demise the grant of such rights as are absolutely necessary to the enjoyment of the subject matter of the conveyance or demise, or of such rights as are reasonably necessary for the use and enjoyment, in the way contemplated by the parties in the conveyance or demise, of the subject matter of the conveyance or demise."
1 Citers


 
Robinson v The Queen [1985] AC 956; [1985] 2 All ER 594
1985
PC

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice, Constitutional
Where a defendant found himself unrepresented on the day of trial, an adjournment should be granted. The constitutional right to representation was not a guarantee of representation but a right for the defendant to arrange representation at his own or public expense. The trial had proceeded when the defendant, having failed to put his counsel in funds, appeared unrepresented: "... the important word used in section 20(6)(c) is 'permitted'. He must not be prevented by the State in any of its manifestations, whether judicial or executive, from exercising the right accorded by the subsection. He must be permitted to exercise those rights."
Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council 1962 SCh 2 s20(6)(c)
1 Citers


 
Farrington v Rowe McBride and Partners [1985] 1 NZLR 83
1985

Richardson J
Commonwealth, Legal Professions
(New Zealand) When a solicitor acts for two clients and there is a conflict in his responsibilities, the solicitor must ensure that he fully discloses the material facts to both clients and obtains their informed consent to his so acting. There may be circumstances, notwithstanding such disclosure, where it is impossible for the solicitor to act fairly and adequately for both parties: "A solicitor's loyalty to his client must be undivided. He cannot properly discharge his duties to one whose interests are in opposition to those of another client. If there is a conflict in his responsibilities to one or both he must ensure that he fully discloses the material facts to both clients and obtains their informed consent to his so acting . . And there will be some circumstances in which it is impossible, notwithstanding such disclosure, for any solicitor to act fairly and adequately for both."
1 Citers



 
 Derco Industries Ltd v A R Grimwood Ltd, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and PLC Construction Ltd; 1985 - [1985] 2 WWR 137
 
Reference re Language Rights under the Manitoba Act 1870 (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 1
1985


Commonwealth, Constitutional
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court declined to give retroactive effect to its decision on the constitutional invalidity of all statutes and regulations of the Province of Manitoba not printed and published in both English and French. A declaration that the unilingual laws of Manitoba were of no effect would have created a legal vacuum with consequent legal chaos. Refusing to take a narrow and literal approach to constitutional interpretation, the court held it could have regard to unwritten postulates such as the principle of the rule of law. Faced with the task of recognising the unconstitutionality of Manitoba's unilingual laws while avoiding a legal vacuum and ensuring the continuity of the rule of law, the court made a ruling which gave deemed temporary validity to all laws rendered invalid by reason of their unilingual defect.
1 Citers


 
Metro Meat Limited v Fares Rural Co. Pty. Limited Rachid Fares (Western Australia) [1985] UKPC 1
21 Jan 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited and Others v National Westminster Finance Australia Limited and Others; PC 24-Jan-1985 - [1985] UKPC 2; Privy Council Appeal 16 of 1984
 
Bill Wallace Enterprises Limited v Stanley Rolle and Catherine Rolle (Bahamas) [1985] UKPC 3
11 Feb 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Goh Eng Wah v Yap Phooi Yin and Yap Fook Sam As Representatives of The Estate of Yap Kon Fah, Deceased (Malaysia) [1985] UKPC 4
25 Feb 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
V.M. Peer Mohamed v The Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited [1985] UKPC 5
25 Feb 1985
PC

Commonwealth
(Singapore)
[ Bailii ]
 
Patrick John, Julian David And, Malcolm Reid v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Dominica) [1985] UKPC 6
27 Feb 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Neo Tia Kim v Foo Stie Wah (M.W) (Singapore) [1985] UKPC 7
4 Mar 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Winfat Enterprise (Hk) Company Limited v The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1985] UKPC 8
11 Mar 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 373; (1985) 57 ALR 609; (1985) 157 CLR 17; [1985] HCA 14
12 Mar 1985

Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Dean and Dawson JJ
Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Landlord and Tenant - Torrens system land - Unregistered lease - Effect - Covenant to pay rent - Breach - Re-entry - Right of landlord to damages for loss of benefit of covenant - Fundamental breach - Repudiation.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Aylmer James Crompton v The General Medical Council (The Health Committee of The General Medical Council) [1985] UKPC 9
2 Apr 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Bankers and Traders Insurance Company Limited v National Insurance Company Limited (Malaysia) [1985] UKPC 11
2 Apr 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
George Kallis (Manufacturers) Limited v Success Insurance Limited (Hong Kong) [1985] UKPC 12
2 Apr 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hart v O'Connor and O'Connor [1985] 1 AC 1004; [1985] UKPC 1
22 Apr 1985
PC
Lord Brightman, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Sir Denys Buckley
Contract, Commonwealth, Health
(New Zealand) The parties disputed the effect in law of an agreement for the sale of land. The transferor had proved not to be of sound mind. Held: The validity of a contract entered into by a lunatic who is ostensibly sane is to be judged by the same standards as a contract by a person of sound mind, and is not voidable by the lunatic or his representatives by reason of "unfairness" unless such unfairness amounts to equitable fraud which would have enabled the complaining party to avoid the contract even if he had been sane.
Lord Brightman: "In the opinion of their Lordships it is perfectly plain that historically a court of equity did not restrain a suit at law on the ground of "unfairness" unless the conscience of the plaintiff was in some way affected. An unconscionable bargain in this context would be a bargain of an improvident character made by a poor or ignorant person acting without independent advice which cannot be shown to be a fair and reasonable transaction. "Fraud" in its equitable context does not mean, or is not confined to, deceit; "it means an unconscientious use of power arising out of the circumstances and conditions" of the contracting parties; Earl of Aylesford v Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 484, 491. It is victimisation, which can consist either of the active extortion of a benefit or the passive acceptance of a benefit in unconscionable circumstances." To accept the proposition enunciated in Archer v. Cutler that a contract with a person ostensibly sane but actually of unsound mind can be set aside because it is "unfair" to the person of unsound mind in the sense of contractual imbalance, is unsupported by authority, is illogical.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Souiadeo Damree v The Queen (Mauritius) [1985] UKPC 15
29 Apr 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Herbert Bell v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (Jamaica) [1985] UKPC 13
30 Apr 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Frank Robinson v The Queen (Jamaica) [1985] UKPC 14
7 May 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas Bruce Hart v Joseph O'Connor Paul Michael O'Connor Frances Joseph O'Connor (New Zealand) [1985] UKPC 17
22 May 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Orkin Exterminating Co Inc v Pestco Co of Canada Ltd (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 90; 50 OR (2d) 726; 30 BLR 152; 34 CCLT 1; 5 CPR (3d) 433; 1985] OJ No 2526 (QL); 10 OAC 14
10 Jun 1985

Morden, Zuber, Robins JJA
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property
Canlii (Court of Appeal, Ontario) Torts -- Passing off -- Goodwill -- Pest control company carrying on business in United States but not in Canada -- Company having reputation among Canadian customers for services performed for them in United States -- Company intending to expand its business into Ontario -- Company having goodwill which Canadian court will protect in passing-off action.
The plaintiff was an American company which did not carry on business in Canada. The defendant was a Canadian company, carrying on business in Metropolitan Toronto. The defendant started using the plaintiff 's name in its business and later it began using the plaintiff 's logo on invoices it sent to customers under its own name. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages for passing off and an injunction. The trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed. The trial judge was right in concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to relief on the basis that it had a reputation (built up in several different ways including having customers) in Ontario and intended to expand its business into Ontario. A plaintiff does not have to be in direct competition with the defendant to suffer injury from the use of its trade name by the defendant. If the plaintiff 's trade name had a reputation in the defendant's jurisdiction, so that the public associated it with services provided by the plaintiff, then the defendant's use of it would mean that the plaintiff had lost control over the impact of its trade name in the defendant's jurisdiction. The practical consequence of this would be that the plaintiff would then be vulnerable to losing the Ontario customers it had as well as prospective Ontario customers, with respect to services provided in the United States. Also, it could result in the plaintiff being prevented from using its trade name in Ontario when it expanded its business into Ontario. Bearing in mind that the defendant had a virtually infinite range of names and symbols from which to choose, it is difficult to see the enjoining of it from using the name and logo of a well- established company in the same business as an unreasonable restraint on its freedom to carry on business as it sees fit. The public are entitled to be protected from such deliberate deception and the plaintiff, which had laboured long and hard and made substantial expenditures to create its reputation which had spread to Ontario, was entitled to the protection of its name from misappropriation. The spectre of the plaintiff having a monopoly in Ontario in its name and distinctive logo, even though it did not carry on business here, was considerably less troubling than the deceptive use of its name and symbol by another. As far as freedom of trade and the reasonable expectations of business people are concerned, the interests of a dishonest defendant are entitled to less weight than those of a defendant who has acted in good faith. That is not to say that the defendant's bad faith alone will confer a cause of action on a foreign plaintiff, but it is a relevant factor to take into account in adjusting competing interests. The plaintiff 's goodwill existed outside the area where it carried on business. In this kind of case the main consideration should be the likelihood of confusion with consequential injury to the plaintiff. Generally, where there is such confusion there is goodwill deserving of protection. In any event, the applicable principles could be framed without using the word "goodwill".
The competing rights of the parties had to be determined as of the date when the defendant started using the plaintiff 's name in Ontario. At the time the plaintiff 's reputation in Ontario, based on its customers in Ontario and advertising of various kinds, was of sufficient strength to make its rights superior to those of the defendant. Its reputation had grown steadily since. The defendant's decision to use the plaintiff 's name in Ontario was evidence that the plaintiff 's name had commercial value at that time in Ontario and was an important indication of goodwill in a "foreign" territory. The defendant argued that no damage to the plaintiff 's goodwill had occurred in Canada because the defendant and the plaintiff were not competitors. Without damage there can be no passing off. However, the plaintiff had suffered damage, sufficient to support a cause of action against the defendant, by virtue of its loss of control over the impact of its trade name in Ontario and the creation of a potential impediment to its using its trade mark upon entering the Ontario market -- both arising from the defendant's use of the plaintiff 's name in Ontario.
Although the plaintiff's business was conducted in the USA, it enjoyed thousands of Canadian clients who used its pest control services for their properties in Canada. It sought an injunction in passing off. Held: Morden JA granted the order, specifically relying on the fact that the plaintiff had goodwill "including having customers" in Canada, although he did express disquiet about Lord Diplock's notion in Star Industrial that goodwill had to be divided up nationally.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
James Chia Shih Ching v The Law Society of Singapore (Singapore) [1985] UKPC 18
10 Jun 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lim Yee Teck and Others v Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) [1985] UKPC 19
17 Jun 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr. Nitai Chand Addy v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1985] UKPC 24
27 Jun 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Candlewood Navigation Corporation Limited v Mitsui OSK Lines Limited and Matsuoka Steamship Co Limited [1986] 1 AC 1; [1985] UKPC 21; [1985] 3 WLR 381; [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 303; [1985] 2 All ER 935
1 Jul 1985
PC
Fraser of Tullybelton, Roskill, Brandon of Oakbrook, Templeman, Griffiths LL
Damages, Commonwealth
(New South Wales) Two ships had collided, after, without negligence, an anchor on one ship failed. The Supreme Court had found the crew negligent after failing to react appropriately to the loss of the anchor. The company now appealed against the damages awarded against it. Held: The Board approved the reasoning of Jacob J in Caltex.
Lord Fraser approved the statement of principle constituting the limit or control mechanism to be imposed upon the liability of a wrongdoer towards those who have suffered economic loss on consequence of negligence.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aluminium Enterprises Limited and Others v The Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [1985] UKPC 23
3 Jul 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] 50 ALR 1; (1985) 157 CLR 424
4 Jul 1985
HCA
Brennan J, Dean J, Mason J
Commonwealth, Negligence
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a possible extension of the law of negligence.
Brennan J said: "the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories. "
Dean J said: "The requirement of proximity is directed to the relationship between the parties in so far as it is relevant to the allegedly negligent act or omission of the defendant and the loss or injury sustained by the plaintiff. It involves the notion of nearness or closeness and embraces physical proximity (in the sense of space and time) between the person or property of the plaintiff and the person or property of the defendant, circumstantial proximity such as an over riding relationship of employer and employee or of a professional man and his client and what may (perhaps loosely) be referred to as causal proximity in the sense of the closeness or directness of the causal connection or relationship between the particular act or course of conduct and the loss and injury sustained. It may reflect an assumption by one party of a responsibility to take care to avoid or prevent injury, loss or damage to the person or property of another or reliance by one party upon such care being taken by the other in circumstances where the other party knew or ought to have known of that reliance. Both the identity and the relative importance of the factors which are determinative of an issue of proximity are likely to vary in different categories of case. That does not mean that there is scope for decision by reference to idiosyncratic notions of justice or morality or that it is a proper approach to treat the requirement of proximity as a question of fact to be resolved merely by reference to the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in the particular circumstances. The requirement of a relationship of proximity serves as a touchstone and control of the categories of case in which the common law will adjudge that a duty of care is owed. Given the general circumstances of a case in a new or developing area of the law of negligence, the question what (if any) combination or combinations of factors will satisfy the requirement of proximity is a question of law to be resolved by the processes of legal reasoning, induction and deduction. On the other hand the identification of the content of that requirement in such an area should not be either ostensibly or actually divorced from notions of what is 'fair and reasonable' . . or from the considerations of public policy which underlie and enlighten the existence and content of the requirement."
Mason J said: "although a public authority may be under a public duty, enforceable by mandamus, to give proper consideration to the question whether it should exercise a power, this duty cannot be equated with, or regarded as a foundation for imposing, a duty of care on the public authority in relation to the exercise of the power. Mandamus will compel proper consideration of the authority of its discretion, but that is all."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Scancarriers A/S v Aotearoa International Limited (New Zealand) [1985] UKPC 26
18 Jul 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Compafina Bank (New South Wales) [1985] UKPC 28
22 Jul 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mitchell and 18 Others (Reasons) v The Director of Public Prosecutions and The Attorney General; PC 25-Jul-1985 - [1985] UKPC 27
 
Singapore Bus Service (1978) Limited v Lim Soon Yong (M.W.) (Singapore) [1985] UKPC 29
29 Jul 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Quek Leng Chye and Gan Khai Choon v The Attorney General (Singapore) [1985] UKPC 30
31 Jul 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Moh Seng Realty (Private) Limited (Chin Cheng Realty (Private) Limited) v Hirendra Lal Bannerji (Singapore) [1985] UKPC 33
16 Aug 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Watson and Another v Glen Robert Phipps (Queensland) [1985] UKPC 34
2 Oct 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lau Ho Wah v Yau Chi Biu (Hong Kong) [1985] UKPC 32
2 Oct 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Libman v The Queen (1985) 21 DLR (4th) 174; 1985 CanLII 51 (SCC)
10 Oct 1985

Dickson CJ and McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ
Commonwealth, Crime
CANLII (Supreme Court of Canada) Appellant was committed for trial on seven counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud arising out of the conduct of his Toronto telephone sales solicitation room. Pursuant to appellant's directions, telephone sales personnel telephoned U.S. residents and attempted to induce them to buy shares in two Central American mining companies. Promotional material was mailed from Central America. The sales personnel were directed to make material misrepresentations with respect to their identity, to where they were telephoning from, and to the quality and value of the shares they were selling. As a result of these misrepresentations, a large number of U.S. residents were induced to buy virtually valueless shares in the two mining companies. Their money was sent to Central America, where appellant received his share to take back to Toronto. The accused, by motion, sought to have the committal for trial quashed on the ground that the alleged offences occurred outside Canada, but the motion was refused. An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed. The counts of fraud on which appellant stood charged could be properly prosecuted in Canada and nothing in the requirements of international comity dictated that Canada not exercise jurisdiction. The conspiracy count could be proceeded with as the fraudulent activities occurred in Canada.
In considering whether a criminal transaction falls outside territorial jurisdiction, account must be taken of all the relevant facts that took place in Canada giving this country an interest in prosecuting the offence and of whether or not anything in those facts offended against international comity. All that is necessary to make an offence subject to the jurisdiction of our courts is that a significant portion of the activities constituting that offence took place in Canada. It is sufficient that there be a "real and substantial link" between an offence and Canada. Sufficient activities preparatory to this fraudulent scheme occurred in Canada to warrant a court's holding that the offence took place in Canada: the scheme was devised here and the whole operation that made it function, including the directing minds and the telephone solicitation, was situated here. The fact that cases where the victims would be harmed outside the country would be caught made no difference. If an accused were prosecuted for the same offence in more than one country, any injustice could be obviated by the pleas of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. No issue of comity was involved. The interests of other countries are not served by allowing criminals based in this country to prey on their citizens.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Mamor Sendirian Berhad v The Director General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1985] UKPC 35
10 Oct 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Sookoo (An Infant By Harry Sookoo His Father and Next Friend) and Harry Sookoo v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1985] UKPC 36
28 Oct 1985
PC

Commonwealth
Trinidad and Tobago
[ Bailii ]

 
 Syed Hussain Bin Abdul Rahman Bin Shaikh Alkaff and Others v AN Abdullah Sahib and Co; PC 31-Oct-1985 - [1985] UKPC 37
 
Reginald Austin v Mirror Newspapers Limited (New South Wales) [1985] UKPC 38
4 Nov 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Clive Hubert Lloyd v David Syme and Company Limited (New South Wales) [1985] UKPC 40
11 Nov 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hammersley Iron Pty. Limited v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia (Western Australia) [1985] UKPC 39
11 Nov 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chabba Corporation Pte. Ltd. v The Owners of and Other Persons Interested In The Ship or Vessel Jag Shakti (Singapore) [1985] UKPC 42
18 Nov 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Inter Equipos Navales S.A. v Lew Kah Choo, Lew Kah Hook, Lew Kah Hoo, Lew Lay Beng (F) (All Trading Under The Name and Style of Hock Cheong and Company) (Singapore) [1985] UKPC 41
18 Nov 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Barry John Durrant Peatfield v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1985] UKPC 43
2 Dec 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Datuk Jaginda Singh, Dakuk P. Suppiah, Arul Chandran v Tara Rajaratnam (M.W.) (Malaysia) [1985] UKPC 44
16 Dec 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Brinds Limited and Others v Offshore Oil N.L. and Others (Victoria) [1985] UKPC 45
16 Dec 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Abel Lemon and Company Pty. Ltd. v Baylin Pty. Ltd. (Queensland) [1985] UKPC 47
18 Dec 1985
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kioa v West; 18-Dec-1985 - (1985) 60 ALJR 113; (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81
 
Chee v Ramlakhan [1985] UKPC 46
18 Dec 1985
PC

Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago)
[ Bailii ]
 
Kinsela v Russell Kinsela Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1986) 4 NSWLR 722; (1986) 4 ACLC 215; 10 ACLR 395
1986

Street CJ, Hope and McHugh JJA
Company, Commonwealth
(New South Wales) If directors act in a way to promote their own interest or promote the private interest of others, they have not acted in the best interests of the company.
Street CJ said: 'In a solvent company the proprietary interests of the shareholders entitle them as a general body to be regarded as the company when questions of the duty of directors arise. If, as a general body, they authorise or ratify a particular action of the directors, there can be no challenge to the validity of what the directors have done. But where a company is insolvent the interests of the creditors intrude. They become prospectively entitled, through the mechanism of liquidation, to displace the power of the shareholders and directors to deal with the company's assets. It is in a practical sense their assets and not the shareholders' assets that, through the medium of the company, are under the management of the directors pending either liquidation, return to solvency, or the imposition of some alternative administration.'
1 Citers


 
Auerbach v Beck (1986) 6 NSWLR 454
1986


Commonwealth, Land
(New South Wales Court of Appeal) Affirmed
1 Cites



 
 Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers Federation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations; 1986 - (1986) 7 NSWLR 372
 
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and others (1986) 162 CLR 24
1986

Gibbs C.J, Mason, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ
Commonwealth, Administrative
(High Court of Australia) The ground of failure to take into account a relevant consideration can only be made out if a decision-maker fails to take into account a consideration which he is bound to take into account in making that decision. If the discretion at issue is unconfined by the terms of the statute, the court will not find the decision-maker is bound to take a particular matter into account unless an implication that he is bound to do so is to be found in the subject-matter, scope and purpose of the Act. "Of course the Minister cannot be expected to read for himself all the relevant papers that relate to the matter. It would not be unreasonable for him to rely on a summary of the relevant facts furnished by the officers of his Department. No complaint could be made if the departmental officers, in their summary, omitted to mention a fact which was insignificant or insubstantial. But if the Minister relies entirely on a departmental summary which fails to bring to his attention a material fact which he is bound to consider, and which cannot be dismissed as insignificant or insubstantial, the consequence will be that he will have failed to take that material fact into account and will not have formed his satisfaction in accordance with law." Mason J: "It would be a strange result indeed to hold that the Minister is entitled to ignore material of which he has actual or constructive knowledge and which may have a direct bearing on the justice of making the land grant, and to proceed instead on the basis of material that may be incomplete, inaccurate or misleading. In one sense this conclusion may be seen as an application of the general principle that an administrative decision-maker is required to make his decision on the basis of material available to him at the time the decision is made. But that principle is itself a reflection of the fact that there may be found in the subject-matter, scope and purpose of nearly every statute conferring power to make an administrative decision an implication that the decision is to be made on the basis of the most current material available to the decision-maker." Brennan J: "A decision-maker who is bound to have regard to a particular matter is not bound to bring to mind all the minutiae within his knowledge relating to the matter. The facts to be brought to mind are the salient facts which give shape and substance to the matter: the facts of such importance that, if they are not considered, it could not be said that the matter has been properly considered."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 Mitsui Construction Co Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong; 1986 - (1986) 33 BLR 14
 
Warman International Ltd and Others v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd and Others (1986) 57 ALR 253
1986

Wilcox J
Litigation Practice, Commonwealth
(Australia High Court) The court considered an application that the privilege against self incrimination be allowed to prevent a requirement to produce documents at court under a sub-poena: "Production is to the Court. Unless and until the contents of the documents is made known to a person who is reasonably likely to use those documents for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, no self-incrimination can occur."
1 Citers



 
 Mitchell v Director of Public Prosecutions of Grenada; PC 1986 - [1986] AC 73; [1985] 3 WLR 72

 
 Lalchan Nanan v The State; PC 1986 - [1986] AC 860; [1986] UKPC 29; [1986] 83 Cr App R 292; (1986) 83 LSG 1995; [1986] 3 WLR 304; (1986) 83 Cr App R 29; [1986] 3 All ER 248

 
 Malayan Credit Ltd v Jack Chia-MPH Ltd; PC 1986 - [1986] 1 AC 549
 
Robindra Nath Data v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1986] UKPC 1
27 Jan 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sylvester C. Morris v General Legal Council Ex Parte Alpart Credit Union (Jamaica) [1986] UKPC 4
29 Jan 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Malayan Credit Limited v Jack Chia-Mph Limited (Singapore) [1986] UKPC 3
3 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Colonial Treasurer Incorporated v Fook Hong Enterprises Company Limited (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 2
3 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Mitsu Construction Company Limited v The Attorney General of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 6
10 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Manilal and Sons (M) Sendirian Berhad v Mahadevan S/O Mahalingam and Another (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 7
10 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Cameron and Others v Lady Barbara Marshall Murdoch and Others [1986] UKPC 9
12 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth
(Western Australia)
[ Bailii ]
 
Pemungut Hasil Tanah v Kam Gin Paik and Others [1986] UKPC 8
12 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth
(Malaysia)
[ Bailii ]
 
Edwards v Cowan and Cowan [1986] UKPC 10
19 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth
Jamaica
[ Bailii ]
 
Shiva Rao S/O Subba Rao v Native Land Trust Board and Another (Fiji) [1986] UKPC 15
19 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Southern Pacific Insurance Company (Fiji) Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue; PC 24-Feb-1986 - [1986] UKPC 14
 
Westpac Banking Corporation And, Commonwealth Steel Company Limited v South Carolina National Bank (New South Wales) [1986] UKPC 11
24 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Yeap Seok Pen v The Government of The State of Kelantan (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 13
24 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Anthony Pereira and Another v Hotel Jayapuri Bhd. and Another (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 16
26 Feb 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Marine Management Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Fiji) [1986] UKPC 17
5 Mar 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Industrial Chemical Co. (Ja.) Limited Appeal No. 25 of 1985) v Owen Ellis (Jamaica) [1986] UKPC 18
17 Mar 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lim Foo Yong Sendirian Berhad v The Comptroller U General Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 19
20 Mar 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Board of Inland Revenue v Winston Herbert Edward Suite (Trinidad and Tobago) [1986] UKPC 21
17 Apr 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael B. Marcus and Others v Eric J. Lawaetz and Another (Eastern Caribbean) [1986] UKPC 20
17 Apr 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Netherlands Insurance Co. Est. 1845 Ltd. v Karl Ljungberg and Co. (Singapore) [1986] UKPC 22
23 Apr 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17
30 Apr 1986

Brennan J
Litigation Practice, Commonwealth, Family
The parties disputed a settlement of property on divorce, and on appeal the court had to consider how it should approach a judgment made at the discretion of the judge at first instance. Held. After citing Bellendon, Brennan J added: "The 'generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible' is wide indeed when there are a number of factors to be taken into account and the comparative weight to be attributed to those factors is not clearly indicated by uniform standards and values of the community. The generous ambit of reasonable disagreement marks the area of immunity from appellate interference."
1 Cites

[ Austlii ]
 
The Viscount v Barry Shelton and Another [1986] UKPC 23
1 May 1986
PC

Commonwealth
Jersey
[ Bailii ]
 
Perak Pioneer Limited Plessy Investments Limited v Petroliam Nasional Berhad Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 24
1 May 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tan Tong Meng (Pte) Ltd. v Artic Builders and Co. (Pte) Ltd. (Singapore) [1986] UKPC 27
22 May 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of Hong Kong v Tse Hung-Lit and Chan Yat-Sing (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 28
22 May 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr. S. Underwood v Ong Ah Long (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 30
22 May 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Syarikat Kewangan Melayu Raya Berhad v Malayan Banking Berhad (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 26
22 May 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Glentham Pty. Ltd v City of Perth (Western Australia) [1986] UKPC 25
22 May 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hinge Well Company Limited v The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 31
11 Jun 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of Hong Kong v Sham Chuen (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 32
17 Jun 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Eng Joo Private Limited v Kian Chiang Granite Quarry Company (Pte) Limited [1986] UKPC 33
19 Jun 1986
PC

Commonwealth
Singapore
[ Bailii ]
 
A. Hudson Pty. Limited v Legal and General Life of Australia Limited (New South Wales) [1986] UKPC 35
23 Jun 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General v The Royal Trust Company and Ernest Raymond Lawson [1986] UKPC 34
23 Jun 1986
PC

Commonwealth
(Bahamas)
[ Bailii ]
 
Space Investments Ltd v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Trust Co (Bahamas) Ltd (Bahamas) [1986] UKPC 1
7 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Space Investments Limited v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Trust (Bahamas) Limited, Dennis Cross And, Patrick Hamilton (Bahamas) [1986] UKPC 37
7 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Graham John Dair v Gregory Allan Butler And, State of Government Insurance Office (Queensland) (Queensland) [1986] UKPC 36
7 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sheila Maharaj v Jai Chand (Fiji) [1986] UKPC 38
7 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Singram Thandayuthapani and 19 Others v Lembega Pelabuhan Keang (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 39
21 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
K.R. Latchan Brothers Limited v Sunbeam Transport Limited, Pacific Transport Limited, Transport Control Board (Fiji) [1986] UKPC 40
28 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited v Director General of Inland Revenue (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 41
29 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Aylmer James Crompton v The General Medical Council (The Health Committee of The General Medical Council) [1986] UKPC 43
29 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Capital Insurance Limited v Rajendranth Seeraj (Trinidad and Tobago) [1986] UKPC 42
30 Jul 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Quinn v Pres-T-Con Limited [1986] UKPC 44
21 Aug 1986
PC

Commonwealth
(Trinidad & Tobago)
[ Bailii ]
 
Walter John Finegan v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council (Reasons)) [1986] UKPC 46
20 Oct 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Challenge Corporation Limited (New Zealand) [1986] UKPC 45
20 Oct 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chay Chong Hwa, Thian Noa, Koh Hoon Yee, Wong Chow Thye and Lee Tong Keong (The Administrators of The Estate of Le Ee Hoong Deceased) v Seah Mary [1986] UKPC 47
27 Oct 1986
PC

Commonwealth
Singapore
[ Bailii ]
 
Nola Chandroutie v Lutchmie Devi Gajadhar (Trinidad and Tobago) [1986] UKPC 48
3 Nov 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Yau Fook Hong Company Limited And, Ying Ho Company Limited v The Attorney General [1986] UKPC 49
3 Nov 1986
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
The Royal Bank Trust Company (Trinidad) Limited v Joseph Norbert Pampellonne and Another [1986] UKPC 50
10 Nov 1986
PC

Commonwealth
(Trinidad & Tobago)
[ Bailii ]
 
Raul Gonzalez and Freddy Suarez v The Queen (The Cayman Islands) [1986] UKPC 52
25 Nov 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hua Chiao Commercial Bank Limited v Chiaphua Industries Limited (Formally Known As Chiap Hua Clocks and Watches Limited) (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 51
25 Nov 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Montana Hotels Pty. Ltd. v Fasson Pty. Ltd. (Victoria) [1986] UKPC 55
2 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
John David Stannard and Others v Lorraine Marie Issa (Jamaica) [1986] UKPC 53
2 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Uriel Augustus Greaves v Eric R. Field (Trinidad and Tobago) [1986] UKPC 54
2 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Motor and General Insurance Company Limited v Sonny Gobin (Jamaica) [1986] UKPC 56
3 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Grace Shipping v CF Sharp and Co (Malaya) Pte Ltd [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 207; [1986] UKPC 57
10 Dec 1986
PC
Lord Goff of Chievely
Litigation Practice, Commonwealth
(Singapore) When a court has to weigh the various and varying recollections of witnesses about what was said at meetings which occurred in the distant past, the surest guides are the contemporaneous documents and the overall probabilities.
Lord Goff of Chievely discussed the fact finding task of a judge: "And it is not to be forgotten that, in the present case, the Judge was faced with the task of assessing the evidence of witnesses about telephone conversations which had taken place over five years before. In such a case, memories may very well be unreliable; and it is of crucial importance for the Judge to have regard to the contemporary documents and to the overall probabilities. In this connection, their Lordships wish to endorse a passage from a judgment of one of their number in Armagas Ltd v. Mundogas S.A. (The Ocean Frost), [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1, when he said at p. 57:- "Speaking from my own experience, I have found it essential in cases of fraud, when considering the credibility of witnesses, always to test their veracity by reference to the objective facts proved independently of their testimony, in particular by reference to the documents in the case, and also to pay particular regard to their motives and to the overall probabilities. It is frequently very difficult to tell whether a witness is telling the truth or not; and where there is a conflict of evidence such as there was in the present case, reference to the objective facts and documents, to the witnesses' motives, and to the overall probabilities, can be of very great assistance to a Judge in ascertaining the truth."
That observation is, in their Lordships' opinion, equally apposite in a case where the evidence of the witnesses is likely to be unreliable; and it is to be remembered that in commercial cases, such as the present, there is usually a substantial body of contemporary documentary evidence."
In that context he was impressed by a witness described in the following terms: "Although like the other main witnesses his evidence was a mixture of reconstruction and original recollection, he took considerable trouble to distinguish precisely between the two, to an extent which I found convincing and reliable." That is so important, and so infrequently done."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General and Another v Humphreys Estate (Queen'S Gardens) Limited (Hong Kong) [1986] UKPC 58
11 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pemberton v Chappell [1987] 1 NZLR 1 CA; (1986) 1 PRNZ 183; CA123/86; [1986] NZCA 112
12 Dec 1986

Somers, Casey, Hillyer JJ
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice
Court of Appeal of New Zealand - The question on a summary judgment application is whether the defendant has no defence to the claim; that is, that there is no real question to be tried.
1 Citers

[ Nzlii ]
 
Pickering Nee Penn As Attorney for Penn, Executrix of The Estate of William Mcfarlane Penn, Deceased v Stevens, Executor of The Estate of Ethelinda Leonora Stevens, Deceased and Others [1986] UKPC 62
18 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth
(Virgin Islands)
[ Bailii ]
 
Datuk Hong Kim Sui v Tiu Shi Kian and Chan Jin Hong (Malaysia) [1986] UKPC 61
18 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Edwards Books and Art Ltd; 18-Dec-1986 - [1986] 2 SCR 713; (1986) 35 DLR (4th) 1; 30 CCC (3d) 385; 86 CLLC 14; 55 CR (3d) 193
 
Coast Securities No. 9 Pty. Ltd v Bondoukou Pty. Ltd and Another and Other Appeals (Queensland) [1986] UKPC 60
18 Dec 1986
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung; PC 1987 - [1987] 1 WLR 1339
 
Minto v Police [1987] 1 NZLR 374; (1991) 7 CRNZ 38
1987

Cooke J
Police, Commonwealth
When considering a police officer's assessment that a breach of the peace is imminent, the question of immediacy is in part a question of degree and is highly relevant to the reasonableness of the action taken.
A refusal or failure to co-operate with a police officer's direction whilst that officer is carrying out his reasonable duty or reasonably exercising a power can amount to obstruction.
The appellants had been convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 in New Zealand came into force four months after the convictions of the appellants. On the appeal by the defendants Robertson J described the argument advanced by counsel on their behalf as follows:

"He argued that s 16 (which guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly) altered the test for determining the lawfulness of police instructions by now requiring the police to do anything else which is reasonably possible to prevent a breach of the peace before interfering with a protester's s 16 right. Further, he submitted that the Court should give the Bill of Rights Act retrospective effect, and decide that even if the police instruction was reasonable, and therefore lawful at the time it was given, s 16 retroactively made it unlawful. Counsel's thesis was that the police must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no other reasonable way of averting a breach of the peace before the request could be upheld as lawful. He argued that the "beneficial" effect of such a retrospective interpretation should overwhelm the presumption against the retrospective effect of statutes."
Robertson J rejected this argument: "Certainly, it would be beneficial from his clients' point of view to have their misdemeanour undone in this fashion. But I do not accept that it would be "beneficial" for the law or society at large if a Court were to declare invalid that which was valid at the time it was done."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Stannard v Issa [1987] AC 175
1987
PC

Commonwealth, Land
(Jamaica) The landowners proposed to erect six blocks providing some 40 dwellings, and sought variation of a restrictive covenant to allow this. The provsion as to the variation of restrictive covenants was whether there were: "practical benefits sufficient in nature or extent to justify the continued existence of (the restriction)". The area was a "peaceful seaside enclave of a family nature". The judge had dismissed the application to modify the covenants, but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the judge should have taken into account the potentially damaging developments which could have been carried out without breaching the covenants. Held: The Court of Appeal's approach was criticised: "Given any set of restrictions it is not usually difficult to conjure up colourful or hypothetical examples of things which could be done within the framework of the covenants as they stand and which, if done, would substantially repair or defeat the purpose for which the covenants were imposed, but that is not an exercise which the court is enjoined by the section to undertake. What the court exercising this jurisdiction is enjoined to do is to consider and evaluate the practical benefits served by the restrictions. The purpose of these restrictions is obvious on their face. It was to preserve the privacy of each purchaser's plot and the quality of the totality of the sub-divisions by restricting housing density, by regulating commercial activity and providing a lower cost limit intended to ensure good quality development. Whether or not the covenants as drawn are sufficiently specific to achieve all these purposes in the face of a really determined attack by somebody intent on disturbing the peace of the neighbourhood is really immaterial. The undisputed evidence was that in fact all those plots which had been built on had in fact been developed by the erection of single storey private dwellings. It was the trial judge's opinion, after a view, that the land formed a peaceful seaside enclave of a family nature. That was the actuality and, with respect to them, the majority of the Court of Appeal, in positing the nightmare of a complex of medical centres or six-storey castles covering the entirety of the sub-divided lots, were ignoring altogether the practical effects of the restrictions and engaging in unnecessary flights of imagination in order to test whether the original intention of the restrictions was capable of achievements in all circumstances. In doing so they were, in their Lordships judgment, asking themselves the wrong question. The question is not "what was the original intention of the restriction and is it still being achieved?" but "does the restriction achieve some practical benefit, and if so, is it a benefit of sufficient weight to justify the continuance of the restrictions without modification?"
1 Citers


 
Kern Corporation Ltd v Walter Reid Trading Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 164
1987

Deane J
Land, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) The court discussed the status of the owner of land between exchange and completion on a sale: "it is both inaccurate and misleading to speak of the unpaid vendor under an uncompleted contract as a trustee for the purchaser . . [T]he ordinary unpaid vendor of land is not a trustee of the land for the purchaser. Nor is it accurate to refer to such a vendor as a 'trustee sub modo' unless the disarming mystique of the added Latin is treated as a warrant for essential misdescription"
1 Citers


 
The Republic of Argentina v Mellino [1987] 1 SCR 536
1987

Lamer J
Commonwealth, Extradition
(Supreme Court of Canada) A principle underlying extradition proceedings is: "Our courts must assume that [the defendant] will be given a fair trial in the foreign country. Matters of due process generally are to be left for the courts to determine at the trial there as they would be if he were to be tried here. Attempts to pre-empt decisions on such matters, whether arising through delay or otherwise, would directly conflict with the principles of comity on which extradition is based."
1 Citers


 
Tay Bok Choon v Tahanson Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 WLR 413; [1987] BCLC 472
1987
PC
Lord Templeman
Company, Commonwealth, Evidence, Litigation Practice
A participant in the company was given the right to be involved in the management until a change should become necessary for some other reason.
In cases of fraud, direct evidence may be rare and circumstantial evidence may have to suffice,
Lord Templeman said: "In civil proceedings the trial judge has no power to dictate to a litigant what evidence he should tender. In winding up proceedings the trial judge cannot refuse to read affidavits which have been properly sworn, filed and produced to him unless some opposing party has applied for the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent and that application has been granted and the deponent does not attend. The court cannot give a direction about evidence unless one of the litigants desires such direction to be made. Of course a judge may indicate to a petitioner that unless he calls oral evidence or applies to cross-examine the deponents of the opposition so as to prove a disputed fact, his petition is likely to fail. The judge may equally indicate to a respondent that unless he calls oral evidence or applies to cross-examine the petitioner's deponents for the purposes of disproving an allegation made by the petitioner, then the petitioner is likely to succeed. At the end of the day the judge must decide the petition on the evidence before him. If allegations are made in affidavits by the petitioner and those allegations are credibly denied by the respondent's affidavits, then in the absence of oral evidence or cross-examination, the judge must ignore the disputed allegations. The judge must then decide the fate of the petition by consideration of the undisputed facts.
1 Citers


 
Challenge Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1987] AC 155
1987
PC

Income Tax, Commonwealth
(New Zealand)
1 Citers



 
 Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Wong Muk Ping; PC 1987 - [1987] AC 501; [1987] 2 WLR 1033; Gazette, 25 March 1987
 
Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen's Gardens) Ltd [1987] 1 AC 114
1987
PC
Lord Templeman
Land, Commonwealth, Estoppel
An agreement in principle was marked "subject to contract". The Government would acquire some flats owned the plaintiff Group of companies in return for the Government granting, inter alia, a lease to the Group of some Crown lands. The Government was allowed to and did take possession of the flats and spent money upon them and moved some civil servants into them, the Crown accordingly disposing of the premises where those civil servants had previously resided. On the other side of the bargain, the Government allowed the Group to enter the Crown land and to demolish buildings upon it. However, the requisite forms of documents were never executed Held: Lord Templeman said: "The government acted in the hope that a voluntary agreement in principle expressly made 'subject to contract' and therefore not binding, would eventually be followed by the achievement of legal relationships in the form of grants and transfers of property. It is possible but unlikely that in circumstances at present unforeseeable a party to negotiations set out in a document expressed to be 'subject to contract' would be able to satisfy the court that the parties had subsequently agreed to convert the document into a contract or that some form of estoppel had arisen to prevent both parties from refusing to proceed with the transactions envisaged by the document."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Nazif; 1987 - [1987] 2 NZLR 122

 
 Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong; PC 1987 - [1988] AC 175; [1987] 2 All ER 705; [1987] 3 WLR 776; [1987] UKPC 16
 
Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 54
1987

Mason ACJ, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ
Commonwealth, Contract
(High Court of Australia) The court consdered the situation where a surety was called after alteration of the contract secured: "to hold the surety to its bargain, the creditor must show that the nature of the alteration can be beneficial to the surety only or that by its nature it cannot in any circumstances increase the surety's risk."
1 Citers


 
Maurice John Kirk (Oral Judgment) v Oral Judgment (Jersey) [1987] UKPC 1
26 Jan 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Tay Bok Choon v Tahansan Sdn. Bhd (Malaysia) [1987] UKPC 2
16 Feb 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General v Wong Muk Ping [1987] UKPC 3
19 Feb 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Blomquist v The Attorney General [1987] UKPC 5
3 Mar 1987
PC

Commonwealth
East Supreme Court
[ Bailii ]
 
Frankland and Another v Regina [1987] UKPC 3; [1987] UKPC 6
3 Mar 1987
PC
Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley
Crime, Commonwealth, Constitutional
Isle of Man - the defendants appealed against their conviction for murder. The Board was asked whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the offence, including the fact of intoxication, the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt a murderous intent. Held: The Board considered the status of decisions of English courts in the Isle of Man.
"Decisions of English Courts, particularly decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in England, are not binding on Manx Courts, but they are of high persuasive authority, as was correctly pointed out by Sir Iain Glidewell in giving the judgment of the Staff of Government Division, Criminal Jurisdiction. Such decisions should generally be followed unless either there is some provision to the contrary in a Manx statute or there is some clear decision of a Manx Court to the contrary, or, exceptionally, there is some local condition which would give good reason for not following the particular English decision. The persuasive effect of a judgment of the House of Lords, which has largely the same composition as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the final Court of Appeal from a Manx Court, is bound to be very high."
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Dominion Rent A Car Ltd v Budget Rent A Car Systems (1970) Ltd [1987] NZCA 13; [1987] 2 TCLR 91; [1987] 2 NZLR 395; (1987) 9 NZIPR 367; (1988) 2 NZBLC 102
27 Mar 1987

Somers J
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The court considered looked at the degree of activity required to justify a finding that an international company had sufficient business connection in New Zealand to which goodwill could attach. Held: Somers J said: "One important limitation on the right of a trader to restrain another is that he must show an invasion of that tangible right of property compendiously described as goodwill . . The existence of a trading reputation is not by itself sufficient - there can be no damage other than to a right of property . . "
1 Citers

[ NZLII ]
 
Co-Operative Bulk Handling Limited v Albert Stuart Jones [1987] UKPC 8
30 Mar 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Western Australia
[ Bailii ]
 
Michael A'Court Taylor v Rototax Trading Limited [1987] UKPC 9
30 Mar 1987
PC

Commonwealth
New Zealand
[ Bailii ]
 
Jaswant Vithaldas v The Queen [1987] UKPC 10
28 Apr 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Mauritius
[ Bailii ]
 
Joseph Hayim Hayim and George Isaac Hayim v Citibank N.A. and Hong Kong Bank Trustee Limited (Hong Kong) [1987] UKPC 11
5 May 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Jaafar Bin Ibriham v Gan Kim Kin (Malaysia) [1987] UKPC 14
20 May 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sun Tai Cheung Credits Limited v The Attorney General (Hong Kong) [1987] UKPC 13
21 May 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Noel Courtenay Sale (Personal Representative of The Estate of Edna Veleta Laing Deceased) v Sonia Allen (Jamaica) [1987] UKPC 15
8 Jun 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Jamincorp International Merchant Bank Limited v The Minister of Finance (Jamaica) [1987] UKPC 18
18 Jun 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of Hong Kong v Daniel Chan Nai-Keung (Hong Kong) [1987] UKPC 19
22 Jun 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
China Ocean Shipping Company, The Owners of The Ship or Vessel Xingcheng v The Owners of The Ship or Vessel Andros (Hong Kong) [1987] UKPC 20
6 Jul 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago And, Victor Cockburn Comptroller of Customs and Excise v Kalicklal Bhooplal Samlal (Trading As The Tile Shop) (Trinidad and Tobago) [1987] UKPC 21
13 Jul 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pierre Simon Andre Sip Heng Wong Ng Alias Wong, Louis Charles Mario Ng Ping Man v The Queen [1987] UKPC 23
20 Jul 1987
PC

Commonwealth
(Mauritius)
[ Bailii ]
 
Paul Beswick v The Queen (Jamaica) [1987] UKPC 22
20 Jul 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gamer's Motor Centre (Newcastle) Proprietary Limited v Natwest Wholesale Australia Proprietary Limited; 24-Jul-1987 - (1987) 163 CLR 236; [1987] HCA 30
 
B Austin v Jimmie Merrill Keele, Sirs for Pty. Limited, International Investments Pty. Limited, Shergold and Skuce [1987] UKPC 24
27 Jul 1987
PC

Commonwealth
New South Wales
[ Bailii ]
 
Lopinot Limestone Limited v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1987] UKPC 26
29 Jul 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Trinidad and Tobago
[ Bailii ]
 
Prasad v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1987] UKPC 29
19 Oct 1987
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Becker and Another (Oral Judgment) v The Bank of Nova Scotia and Another [1987] UKPC 31
16 Nov 1987
PC

Commonwealth
(Cayman Islands)
[ Bailii ]
 
City Investment Sdn. Bhd. v Koperasi Serbunga Cuepacs Tanggungan Bhd [1987] UKPC 32
24 Nov 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Malaysia
[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Man-Sin v The Queen [1987] UKPC 33
30 Nov 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]

 
 Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd; PC 30-Nov-1987 - [1988] AC 473; [1988] 1 All ER 163; [1987] UKPC 2; [1987] UKPC 34
 
M.M. Moraby And, M. Bahorun v The Queen [1987] UKPC 36
2 Dec 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Mauritius
[ Bailii ]
 
Bank Negara Indonesia 1946 v Lariza (Singapore) Private Limited [1987] UKPC 37
7 Dec 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Singapore
[ Bailii ]
 
Morgan v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1987] UKPC 38
14 Dec 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Trinidad & Tobago
[ Bailii ]
 
Harel Freres Limited v The Minister of Housing, Lands, and Town and Country Planning [1987] UKPC 40
15 Dec 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Mauritius
[ Bailii ]
 
Norton v The Public Service Commission [1987] UKPC 39
15 Dec 1987
PC

Commonwealth
Mauritius
[ Bailii ]

 
 Yau Fook Hong Company Limited v The Attorney General (Hong Kong); PC 21-Dec-1987 - [1987] UKPC 41
 
Tall-Bennett and Co Pty Ltd v Sadot Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 4 BPR 9522
1988

Young J
Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) The tenant abandoned the premises. When the landlord sought recovery of the subsequent rents, the tenant argued that he had a duty to mitigate his losses. Held. The tenant failed. If the tenant wants to go out of possession and be relieved of the economic burden of the rent he can try to underlet or find an assignee. It was not unreasonable in a landlord to insist on maintaining his position as a result of the grant of the lease, and being reluctant to assume the trouble of finding a new tenant and then suing the original tenant for damages, and leaving it to the tenant to find an assignee or sub-tenant.
1 Citers


 
Walton Stores (Interstate) Limited v Maher [1988] 164 CLR 387
1988


Estoppel, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) It would be unconscionable for a party to stand by in silence when it must have known that the other party was proceeding on an assumption that they had a binding agreement.
1 Citers


 
Chan Man-sin v The Queen [1988] 1 WLR 196 PC
1988
PC

Commonwealth, Crime

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Rowbotham and others; 1988 - (1988) 41 CCC,(3d) 1
 
McTaggart v McTaggart (1988) FLC 91-920
1988

Mullane J
Commonwealth, Family
The court was asked as to the treatment of a lottery win on a divorce. Held: The prize was a windfall enuring to the benefit of both parties. Mullane J said: "My view is that these arguments are misconceived. The $500,000 was a windfall. It is nothing more. It was not the fruit of some labour or skill of the husband. It was not a contribution by him to the matrimonial property. The courts have declined to recognise windfalls during the marriage as contributions by one of the parties . . I do not accept that the lottery winnings should be treated as a contribution by either party. I do not accept that they should be treated differently to any other matrimonial property acquired by the parties during the marriage."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Whyte (1988) 51 DLR 4th 481
1988

Dickson CJC
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court rejected an argument that as a matter of principle a constitutional presumption of innocence only applies to elements of the offence and not excuses: "The real concern is not whether the accused must disprove an element or prove an excuse, but that an accused may be convicted while a reasonable doubt exists. When that possibility exists, there is a breach of the presumption of innocence. The exact characterization of a factor as an essential element, a collateral factor, an excuse, or a defence should not affect the analysis of the presumption of innocence. It is the final effect of a provision on the verdict that is decisive. If an accused is required to prove some fact on the balance of probabilities to avoid conviction, the provision violates the presumption of innocence because it permits a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the guilt of the accused."
1 Citers



 
 Malcolm Forde v The Queen; PC 26-Apr-1988 - [1988] UKPC 1
 
The New Zealand Meat Industry Association and Others (Oral Judgment) v The Accident Compensation Corporation (New Zealand) [1988] UKPC 3
4 May 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Wang Kan-Po v The Queen [1988] UKPC 6
19 May 1988
PC

Commonwealth
(Hong Kong)
[ Bailii ]
 
S Buxoo and Another v The Queen (Mauritius) [1988] UKPC
19 May 1988
PC
Lord Keith of Kinkel Lord Brandon of Oakbrook Lord Griffiths
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
(Mauritius) Mauritius had passed an Act extending rights of Appeal. The Board considered and confirmed that it does not sit as a court of criminal appeal. In order to interfere, there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shake the very basis of justice. The Badry case guidelines will continue to be followed. This case did not fall within that ambit and the appeal failed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Dr. Raja Francis WannakuKorale (Oral Judgment) v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1988] UKPC 8
19 May 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
S. Buxoo and Another v The Queen (Mauritius) [1988] UKPC 5
19 May 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat; PC 24-May-1988 - [1988] SJ 1244; [1988] RTR 298; [1988] UKPC 7
 
The Attorney General And, The Minister of Labour v Cordell Stewart And, University and Allied Workers Union (Jamaica) [1988] UKPC 9
24 May 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Public Disclosure Commission v Kendal G. L. Isaacs (Bahamas) [1988] UKPC 10
20 Jun 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Vergara and Arcilla v The Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] UKPC 11
27 Jun 1988
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Asia Television Limited (Formally Known As Rediffusion Television Limited) (Oral Judgment) v Television Broadcasts Limited [1988] UKPC 12
28 Jun 1988
PC

Commonwealth
(Hong Kong)
[ Bailii ]
 
Kwok Chi Leung Karl (An Excutor Named In The Will of Lamson Kwok) v The Commissioner of Estate Duty [1988] UKPC 13
11 Jul 1988
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Bryan Heriot - Hill (Oral Judgment) v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The General Medical Council) [1988] UKPC 14
11 Jul 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General for Saint Christopher and Nevis v Sir Probyn Inniss [1988] UKPC 15
18 Jul 1988
PC

Commonwealth
(Eastern Caribbean)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Law Shing-Huen v The Queen [1988] UKPC 16
25 Jul 1988
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Bermuda Gas and Utility Company Limited v Warwick Hotel Company Limited (Bermuda) [1988] UKPC 17
25 Jul 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Li ShuLing v The Queen [1988] UKPC 18
27 Jul 1988
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Kenneth Gordon v Daniel Chokolingo As Excutor of The Will of Patrick Chokolingo (Deceased) and Others (Trinidad and Tobago) [1988] UKPC 19
6 Aug 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Breavington v Godleman [1988] HCA 40; (1988) 169 CLR 41; (1988) 80 ALR 362; (1988) 62 ALJR 447; (1988) 7 MVR 289
18 Aug 1988

Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron JJ
Commonwealth, Damages, Constitutional
Austlii (High Court of Australia) - Private International Law - Tort - Negligence - Act committed in Territory - Personal injury - Territory statute imposing limit on amount of damages - Action in State court - No limit on amount of damages under State law - Choice of law - Whether law of place of tortious act or of forum - The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 118, 122 - Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (N.T.), ss. 4,5 - State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act 1901 (Cth), s. 18.
Federal Jurisdiction - Conflict of laws - Full faith and credit - Whether State court required to give full faith and credit to Territory statute - Whether law of Territory a law of the Commonwealth - Inconsistency - The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 109, 118 - State and Territorial Laws and Recognition Act 1901 (Cth), s. 18.
Federal Jurisdiction - Action in State court against Commonwealth - Submission to jurisdiction - Whether federal jurisdiction - Whether State choice of law rules apply - The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 75(iii), 78 - Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 39(2), 56, 64, 79.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand [1988] NZCA 180; CA40/84; [1988] 2 NZLR 490; (1988) 2 TCLR 701
22 Sep 1988

Somers, Casey, Gallen JJ
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The plaintiff had created a hugely sucessful TV programme in the UK, called Opportunity Knocks. He now appealed against rejection of his claim in copyright alleging that the defendant had copied the format, and also in passing off. Held: Courts have a discretion whether or not to order a new trial where fresh evidence is sought to be introduced and, in exercise of that discretion, they should apply the tests in Ladd v Marshall
Ongley J considered the claim to copyright in the words "Opportunity Knocks" and held that copyright did not subsist in the title. His Honour noted that it is a difficult but not an impossible task to establish copyright in a title. He referred to the Privy Council decision in Francis
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Nzlii ]
 
Eric Joseph v The State (Dominica) [1988] UKPC 20
6 Oct 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Simon Ah Tong and 62 Others v The Mauritius Sugar Terminal Corporation (Mauritius) [1988] UKPC 21
20 Oct 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lui Mei Lin v The Queen [1988] UKPC 22
24 Oct 1988
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
Union Steamship Company of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1; [1988] HCA 55
26 Oct 1988

Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ
Commonwealth, Constitutional
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Constitutional Law (Cth) - Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws - Compensation of seamen - Laws expressly contemplating coexistence of laws - Whether Commonwealth law covers field - The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict c. 12), s.109 - Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 (Cth), ss.5(2)(e), 10A - Australia Act 1986 (Cth), s.2(1) - Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW), ss.7,46.
Constitutional Law - State Parliament - Powers - To make laws for peace, order and good government - Connexion of operation of law with State - Remote or general connexion sufficient - Workers' compensation claimed by crew member of State-registered ship - Whether eligible to claim only under Commonwealth legislation - Registration of ship sufficient connexion with State - Extraterritorial operation.
Workers' Compensation (N.S.W.) - Entitlement - Territorial limits of jurisdiction - Compensation under State law unavailable under Commonwealth law - Claim under State law - Whether maintainable - Crew member of State-registered ship.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Chase Securities Limited v G.S.H. Finance Pty. Limited (New Zealand) [1988] UKPC 23
31 Oct 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Simon Lydall Savill And, Lucinda Mary Savill v Chase Holdings (Wellington) Limited And, Chase Corporation Limited (New Zealand) [1988] UKPC 24
31 Oct 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pandit Jayram Seetohul v Mauritius Arya Rivi Ved Pracharini Sabha (Mauritius) [1988] UKPC 27
21 Nov 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Fon Teen Kission v The Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [1988] UKPC 28
29 Nov 1988
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hungerfords v Walker; 1989 - (1989) 171 CLR 125

 
 Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd; 1989 - (1989) 167 CLR 177

 
 Watkins v Olafson; 1989 - [1989] 2 SCR 750
 
Regina v Saraswati (1989) 18 NSWLR 143
1989

Toohey J, McHugh J
Commonwealth, Crime
(Criminal Court of Appeal - New South Wales) The defendant appealed convictions on counts of indecency with a child, the only evidence relied on, in relation to some counts, being evidence of full sexual intercourse. Statutory time limits precluded prosecution for unlawful sexual intercourse and indecent assault. It was held at trial not to be an abuse of process for the prosecution to rely on the evidence of sexual intercourse to establish the charge of indecency Held: (Majority) The High Court applied a "rule that, when a statute specifically deals with a matter and makes it the subject of a condition or limitation, it excludes the right to use a general provision in the same statute to avoid that condition or limitation". The court did not accept that when Parliament amended the relevant Act to criminalise acts of indecency it intended that general power to be used to circumvent the time limit placed on prosecutions under the specifically applicable sections of the same statute.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Orr v Ford (1989) 167 CLC 316
1989

Deane J
Commonwealth, Trusts
Ordinarily the laches of a beneficiary would not make it inequitable or unreasonable to grant relief in proceedings for the enforcement of an express trust in relation to property in the possession of the trustee.
1 Citers


 
Bell-Booth Group Ltd v Attorney General [1989] 3 NZLR 148
1989


Commonwealth, Negligence, Defamation
There were alternative cases put in defamation and negligence. Held: negligence could not operate in that sort of case.
1 Citers


 
Vickers and Vickers v Stichtenoth Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 52 SASR 90
1989

Bollen J
Landlord and Tenant, Commonwealth
(Supreme Court of South Australia) The court considered whether a landlord faced with a tenant who had vacated the property was under a duty to mitigate his losses: "There is no reason why in modern times mitigation of damage should not apply. It is an ordinary principle of contract law. With modern leases the law should recognise the importance of the contractual aspect of a lease. Why should not a landlord faced with abandonment take steps to try to reduce his loss? Why should a vendor of tomatoes faced with refusal to take delivery by his purchaser suffer if he does not sell if he can to another purchaser and yet a quiescent and immobile landlord not suffer if he fails to seek another tenant? Modern ideas say that there is no reason for this anomaly" and "mitigation as one ordinary principle of contract law applies to leases. That is to say, when a tenant abandons the leased premises the landlord is under duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by seeking another tenant. Of course circumstances may make it impossible or impractical for him for do that or find a tenant. But I think that the principle applies."
1 Citers


 
Scott and another v Regina, Barnes and others v Regina (1989) 89 CAR 153
1989
PC
Lord Griffiths
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(Jamaica) The defendants appealed the dismissal of their appeals against convictions for capital murder. In Scott, a special constable was shot with his own revolver in a bar, and subsequently died of his wounds. The only evidence identifying Scott and his co-accused, Walters, was contained in the deposition of a witness who had died before trial. In Barnes and others the deceased was shot after stopping his van and his money was stolen. Three defendants were charged with his murder. The only evidence identifying them was given by a witness, who gave evidence at the preliminary inquiry, but who was murdered before the trial. In each case, the evidence of the missing witness was read as his evidence. Held: Lord Griffiths summarised the common law. He underlined the discretion of the judge to exclude such evidence, but pointed out: " If the courts are too ready to exclude the deposition of a deceased witness it may well place the lives of witnesses at risk particularly in a case where only one witness has been courageous enough to give evidence against the accused or only one witness has had the opportunity to identify the accused". A number of precautions could be taken: "no rules can usefully be laid down to control the detail to which a judge should descend in the individual case…. This much however can be said that neither the inability to cross examine, nor the fact that the deposition contains the only evidence against the accused, nor the fact that identification evidence will of itself be sufficient to justify the exercise of the discretion."
1 Citers



 
 Vakauta v Kelly; 1989 - (1989) 167 CLR 569
 
Andrews v British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143
1989

McIntyre J
Commonwealth, Discrimination
(Canada) McIntyre J defined discrimination: "discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to the personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society."
1 Citers


 
Hubert Volney v Allan Brammer (Trinidad and Tobago) [1989] UKPC 1
25 Jan 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Gerald Eckel v The Board of Inland Revenue (Trinidad and Tobago) [1989] UKPC 2
25 Jan 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Crampad International Marketing Company Limited And, Clover Brown v Val Benjamin Thomas (Jamaica) [1989] UKPC 3
25 Jan 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General of Hong Kong v Siu Yuk Shing [1989] UKPC 4
25 Jan 1989
PC

Commonwealth
Hong Kong
[ Bailii ]
 
L. S. P. Limited v Oodeynarain Surjoo (Mauritius) [1989] UKPC 5
30 Jan 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Shabir Ali v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [1989] UKPC 6
16 Feb 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Sherry v The Queen [1989] UKPC 7
20 Feb 1989
PC

Commonwealth
Guernsey
[ Bailii ]
 
Keng Soon Finance Berhad v M. K. Retnam Holdings Sdn. Bhd. And, Bhagat Singh S/O Surain Singh (Malaysia) [1989] UKPC 8
6 Mar 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Winston Barnes, Washington Desguottes And, Clovis Johnson v The Queen (Jamaica) [1989] UKPC 10
13 Mar 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Pacific Insurance Company Limited v Wong Po Wah By His Next Friend Raymond Wong (Hong Kong) [1989] UKPC 9
13 Mar 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Universal Dockyard Limited v Trinity General Insurance Company Limited (Hong Kong) [1989] UKPC 12
16 Mar 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lance Murray, Godfrey Jardine, Harold Petit, Leslie Akum Lum and Arthur Chin Lee v Caroni Limited (Trinidad and Tobago) [1989] UKPC 13
16 Mar 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
S. Lotun v The Queen (Mauritius) [1989] UKPC 15
10 Apr 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Owens Bank Limited v Gerard Cauche, Etoile Commerciale S.A. And, Yves Gely [1989] UKPC 14
10 Apr 1989
PC

Commonwealth
Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
[ Bailii ]
 
Moutou v The Government of Mauritius, The Minister of Health And, The District Council of Pamplemousses Riviere Du Rempart [1989] UKPC 16
10 Apr 1989
PC

Commonwealth
(Mauritius)
[ Bailii ]
 
Torainam Bte Tukimin v Ton Kai Chup (An Infant) (Singapore) [1989] UKPC 17
11 Apr 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Capita Financial Group Ltd v Rothwells Ltd; 20-Apr-1989 - (1989) 15 ACLR 348
 
Dr. Navin Chandra Rastogi v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The Medical Council) [1989] UKPC 18
24 Apr 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Brian Oswald Barber And, B.O Barber (Himatangi) Limited v Henery Otho Barber And, Francis Henry Kember (New Zealand) [1989] UKPC 19
4 May 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
PWG Suttle etc v Simmons [1989] UKPC 20
22 May 1989
PC

Commonwealth
Bermuda
[ Bailii ]
 
Frank Tony Vujnovich And, Steven Michael Vujnovich v Anthony Ljubo Vujnovich (New Zealand) [1989] UKPC 21
23 May 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Hui Ting Hang v Grand Union Motor Insurance Company Limited (Hong Kong) [1989] UKPC 22
12 Jun 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr. Eliott Hugh Langford v The General Medical Council (The Professional Conduct Committee of The Medical Council) [1989] UKPC 23
26 Jun 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cheah Theam Swee v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd. And, Equiticorp Nominees Ltd; PC 12-Jul-1989 - [1989] UKPC 25
 
Horace Reid v Dowling Charles and Percival Bain [1989] UKPC 24
13 Jul 1989
PC

Commonwealth
Trinidad & Tobago
[ Bailii ]
 
Ten-Ichi Co Ltd v Jancar Ltd [1989] 2 HKC 330
19 Jul 1989

Sears J
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property
(High Court of Hong Kong) - Tort - Passing off - whether action lies when no active business in Hong Kong - International reputation and goodwill - Damages whether recoverable if sustained outside the jurisdiction.
Sears J hearing of an application for an interlocutory injunction held that mere reputation was enough to found a passing off claim.
1 Citers

[ HKLii ]
 
Jamaica Mutual Life Assurance Society v Hillsborough Ltd., Robert Bolt, Lancelot P. Reynolds And, Royal Bank Trust (Jamaica) [1989] UKPC 27
24 Jul 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong (Singapore) [1989] UKPC 29
25 Jul 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Yien Yieh Commercial Bank Limited v Kwai Chung Col Storage Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong) [1989] UKPC 28
25 Jul 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Junior Reid, Roy Dennis and Oliver Whylie v The Queen; Errol Reece, Robert Taylor and Delroy Quelch v the Queen [1989] UKPC 1; [1990] 1 AC 363
27 Jul 1989
PC
Lord Diplock
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth
PC (Jamaica)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Richard John Money v Robert Arthur Playle David Larkin Pakieto Fale, Ven-LuRee Limited, Stuart Craig Ennor (New Zealand) [1989] UKPC 30
27 Jul 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Junior Reid, Roy Dennis And, Oliver Whylie v The Queen (Jamaica) [1989] UKPC 31
27 Jul 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The Government of The United States v Frederick Nigel Rowe (Bahamas) [1989] UKPC 32
4 Aug 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Lac Minerals v International Corina Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 14 Can SC (Canada); [1989] 2 SCR 574; [1990] FSR 441; 69 OR (2d) 287; 1989 CanLII 34 (SCC)
11 Aug 1989

McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest and Sopinka JJ
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property, Damages, Equity
Supreme Court of Canada on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario - Commercial law -- Confidentiality -- Mining companies discussing possible joint venture -- Confidential exploration results disclosed during discussions -- High potential property adjacent to lands of exploration company -- Mining company in receipt of information purchasing property for own use -- Whether or not company in breach of duty respecting confidences -- Whether or not breach of fiduciary duty -- If so, the appropriate remedy.
Industrial and intellectual property -- Trade secrets -- Confidentiality -- Mining companies discussing possible joint venture -- Confidential exploration results disclosed during discussions -- High potential property adjacent to lands of exploration company -- Mining company in receipt of information purchasing property for own use -- Whether or not company in breach of duty respecting confidences -- If so, the appropriate remedy.
Trusts and trustees -- Fiduciary duty -- Trade secrets -- Confidentiality -- Mining companies discussing possible joint venture -- Confidential exploration results disclosed during discussions -- High potential property adjacent to lands of exploration company -- Mining company in receipt of information purchasing property for own use -- Whether or not breach of fiduciary duty -- If so, the appropriate remedy.
Remedies -- Unjust enrichment -- Restitution -- Constructive trust -- Nature of constructive trust -- When constructive trust available.
[ Canlii ]
 
Richfield International Land and Investment Company Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Hong Kong) [1989] UKPC 33
3 Oct 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia) Incorporated v The Attorney General of Singapore [1989] UKPC 34
5 Oct 1989
PC

Commonwealth
(Singapore)
[ Bailii ]
 
Harrioersad Ramlogan v Chaitlal Ramlogan, Benny Jaikaran, Angela Ramlogan, Patsy Seemungal And, Boodram Seemungal (Trinidad and Tobago) [1989] UKPC 36
9 Nov 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Larry Hone v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Bahamas) [1989] UKPC 37
9 Nov 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
The China and South Sea Bank Limited v Tan Soon Gin, George Alias George Tan (Hong Kong) [1989] UKPC 38
13 Nov 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Kwok Keung And, Char Kar Shing v The Queen (Hong Kong) [1989] UKPC 39
27 Nov 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]
 
James Harewood and Estina Rampersad v Mcleod Retese (Trinidad and Tobago) [1989] UKPC 40
14 Dec 1989
PC

Commonwealth

[ Bailii ]

 
 Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Commission; 20-Dec-1989 - [1989] NSWCA 184; [1983] 2 NSWLR 418; [1983] 2 NSWLR 669
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.