Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Cases...

Description

Balfour v Balfour (1919) The defendant who worked in Ceylon, came to England with his wife on holiday. He later returned to Ceylon alone, the wife remaining in England for health reasons. The defendant promised to pay the plaintiff £30 per month as maintenance, but failed to keep up the payments when the marriage broke up. The wife sued. It was held that the wife could not succeed because: (1) she had provided no consideration for the promise to pay £30; and (2) agreements between husbands and wives are not contracts because the parties do not intend them to be legally binding. Merrit v Merrit (1970) The husband left his wife. They met to make arrangements for the future. The husband agreed to pay £40 per month maintenance, out of which the wife would pay the mortgage. When the mortgage was paid off he would transfer the house from joint names to the wife's name. He wrote this down and signed the paper, but later refused to transfer the house. It was held that when the agreement was made, the husband and wife were no longer living together, therefore they must have intended the agreement to be binding, as they would base their future actions on it. This intention was evidenced by the writing. The husband had to transfer the house to the wife. Twine v Beans Express Ratio: A driver was engaged to drive his employers’ van, his employers having a contract with the Post Office. When so doing, he gave Mr. Twine a lift from A to B, both offices of the Post Office. The driver had been expressly forbidden to give lifts. Held: The express prohibition upon giving lifts was not only a prohibition but was also a limiting factor on the scope of the employment. The driver was not acting in the course of his employment. Lord Greene said: ‘The other thing which he was doing simultaneously was something totally outside the scope of his employment – namely, giving a lift to a person who had no right whatsoever to be there.’ *Employee held vicariously liable Rose v Plenty A milkman was employed to deliver milk As part of his employment contract, he was prohibited from having children help him Nonetheless a young boy did help, and was injured. *Employer held vicariously liable R v Miller [1954] 2 All ER 529 The defendant's wife had left him in 1952. The following year she petitioned for divorce. Before the hearing for the petition the defendant had sexual intercourse with her against her will. He had thrown her to the ground on three occasions and she was in a hysterical and nervous condition as a result of his actions. He was charged with rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 OAPA 1861. The defendant relied on the marital consent exception to rape and that nervous shock does not amount to a bodily injury.

RvR The defendant married his wife (complainant) in August 1984. After the marriage did not work, she moved out in October 1989 and took her son to live with her parents. At the time of the incident in November 1989, they were separated but not legally divorced. The defendant broke in to her parents’ home and attempted to have sexual intercourse with the complainant who did not consent. The defendant was charged with attempted rape under s1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 and with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Davis v Johnson An unmarried mother and the father of her child are cohabitants of a local council flat, of which they are registered as joint tenants. The man beat the woman frequently, employing extreme violence. The man threatened to kill her with a screwdriver as well as to chop her body up. The woman eventually fled from the flat with her child. She applied to the County Court for her right to return to the flat and an order to exclude the man from the flat under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. Addie v Dembreck A four-year-old boy was killed as a result of being crushed by the wheel of a haulage system which belonged to a colliery company. The field in which the system was situated in was surrounded by a large hedge, which was essentially ineffective due to the large gaps in it. The grounds were used as a playground by young children, as well as a short cut to a local railway station and this was something that the colliery company was aware of and then often tried to warn them away. The father of the boy brought a claim against the company for the injury that his son sustained during the accident. Pepper v Hart The House of Lords had to decide whether a teacher at a private school had to pay tax on the perk he received in the form of reduced school fees. The teacher sought to rely upon a statement in Hansard made at the time the Finance Act was passed in which the minister gave his exact circumstance as being where tax would not be payable. Previously the courts were not allowed British Rail way Board v Herrington A six year old boy was electrocuted and suffered severe burns when he wondered from a play park onto a live railway line. The railway line was surrounded by a fence however, part of the fence had been pushed down and the gap created had been used frequently as a short cut to the park. The defendant was aware of the gap in the fence which had been present for several months, but had failed to do anything about it. Under existing authority of Addie v Dumbreck no duty of care was owed to trespassers. However, the House of Lords departed from their previous decision using the 1966 Practice Statement and held that the defendant railway company did owe a duty of common humanity to trespassers.

Anderton v Ryan The defendant was found in possession of a video recorder. She refused to name the source, but admitted that she believed it to be stolen. After it became clear that there was no evidence that it was in fact stolen, she was convicted of attempting to handle stolen goods. Held: The 1981 Act had changed the common law position, and the mere doing of preparatory acts which, if completed would constitute an offence, was not now sufficient. A conviction was now prevented where the full offence could not follow from the preparatory acts. None of the subsections would turn what was in fact an innocent act into an offence of attempting to commit the crime, merely by virtue of the defendant’s criminal intent. R v Shivpuri Pyare Shivpuri (S) was persuaded to act as a drugs courier. S collected a suitcase which contained several packages of white powder which he admitted in police interview that he believed to be either heroin or cannabis but was in fact legal snuff. S was charged with attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with and harbouring the controlled drug of heroin, under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 section 1(1) (1981 Act) and the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 section 170(1)(b) (1979 Act), despite the fact that the white powder was not in fact drugs. S was convicted and appealed. White v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1953) The company's articles of association provided that the class rights could only be 'affected, modified, varied, dealt with, or abrogated in any manner' with the approval of an extraordinary resolution passed at a separate meeting of the members of that class. The company made a bonus issue to ordinary shareholders, thereby diluting in practical terms the preference shareholders’ voting power. A preference shareholder challenged the share issue on the basis that the preferences’ voting rights had been ‘affected’ without their consent. It was held that there was no need to obtain their consent. Their voting rights had not been affected by the bonus issue as they still had the right to one vote per share held. All that had been affected was the enjoyment of this legal right, which was ‘not the subject of any assurance or guarantee under the constitution of the company’....