Intro Common Law

Bukton v Tounesende

The King's Bench held the action could rightly be brought in tort. The claim was against the killing of the horse, and not merely the failure to transport it. Accordingly no documentary proof of a covenant was needed

Earl of Oxford

was a landmark case that established the principle that equity law prevails over common law in cases of conflict. It emphasized the importance of preventing unfair outcomes in legal proceedings

Priestley v Fowler

An employer is not liable for damage suffered by an employee due to the negligence of a fellow employee (fellow servant rule). The employee is expected to accept the usual risks of the job, including mistakes made by colleagues

Inland Revenu Commissioners v Hinchy

A taxpayer who fails to properly declare income is liable for the full statutory penalty, even if the omission was unintentional and some tax was already paid. The penalty applies strictly, regardless of partial compliance

Fisher v Bell

The display of goods in a shop window with a price tag constitutes an invitation to treat, not an offer to sell. Therefore, no contract is formed when a customer expresses an intention to buy

Nat. Society v Scottish Society

If a will names a charity but there are multiple with similar names, the court will decide which one was intended based on the testator’s likely intent.

R. v. Allen

A person can be convicted of bigamy under the law if they go through a ceremonial marriage while still legally married, even if the second marriage is not valid. The act of going through the ceremony is enough to constitute the offense.

Heydon’s case

the mischief rule states that when interpreting a statute, judges should consider the problem the law was meant to solve and interpret it in a way that addresses that issue

Corkery v Carpenter

A person can be convicted under the law for being drunk in charge of a vehicle, even if the vehicle is not in motion. The key factor is that the person was in control of the vehicle while intoxicated, which is considered an offense regardless of whether the vehicle was actually driven.

Smith v Hughes

A person can be found guilty of soliciting in a public place under the Street Offences Act 1959 even if the solicitation occurs in private, as long as the intent to solicit in a public place is present. In this case, the court held that "public place" should be interpreted broadly, meaning that actions can still be considered as soliciting in public even if they occur from a private place

Pinnel’s case

Payment of a lesser amount on a debt, offered before the due date, does not discharge the full debt unless there is something additional given, such as an agreement or a new consideration

London Street Tramways v London County Council

Once a court has made a decision on a legal question, it should not be revisited or appealed again by the same parties unless there is a significant reason to do so

Young v Bristol Aeroplane

the Court of Appeal decided that while it must generally follow its own past rulings, it can depart from them in three situations: if its own decisions conflict, if the House of Lords has overruled its decision, or if it made a mistake in the previous ruling

Froom v Butscher

A person who suffers injury due to their own negligence may have their damages reduced if they failed to take reasonable steps to avoid harm, such as failing to wear a seatbelt in a car accident. The court ruled that contributory negligence can reduce the amount of compensation, but the reduction depends on how much the failure to take precautions contributed to the injury

England v Cowley

The court ruled against Mr. England, determining that Mr. Cowley's refusal to allow removal of the furniture did not constitute conversion. The reasoning was that Mr. Cowley did not assert ownership over the furniture but merely sought to secure payment of the rent due. Therefore, his actions did not amount to an outright denial of Mr. England's ownership rights

Oakley v Lister

Lyster bought a land. Oakley wanted to remove material there, but Lyster denied access because said he is the owner. Then Lyster invoked the England vs, Cowley, saying that his actions did not constitute conversion. But the facts of the case were different, since in this case Lyster was actually pretending to be the owner, unlike Cowley this did not apply and the court said it was conversion

Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant

The Court of Appeal held that acceptance is complete upon posting, even if the acceptance letter is lost and never reaches the offeree. This established the postal rule,where a contract is formed at the moment the acceptance is posted.

Rondel v Worsley

The House of Lords held that barristers are immune from negligence claims when acting as advocates in court. 

Hedley Byrne & Co. v Heller & Partners

The court ruled that a bank could be held liable for wrong advice, but this rule was not on the basis of the dictum. Therefore, this rule was not binding​

R v Howe

Duress is not a defense to murder, as the sanctity of life outweighs self-preservation. In this case, the judges also stated in an obiter dicta that duress should also not be a defense to attempted murder, as the principle equally applies to attempts.

R v Gotts

Obiter dicta (non-binding commentary) can "ripen into" ratio decidendi(binding precedent) when later applied and affirmed by courts, as seen in the transition from Howe to Gotts.

R v Jordan

The court held that parliamentary sovereignty is supreme, and statutory law overrides natural law principles, including free speech. While free speech is fundamental, it can be restricted by law to prevent harm, such as hate speech. So, acts of parliament cannot be tested against principles of natural law

Factortame I &II

The House of Lords upheld EU law’s primacy over domestic law in areas governed by EU treaties. However, parliamentary sovereignty was preserved, as Parliament could still explicitly legislate to override EU law. So the British never accepted full superiority

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke

The Privy Council held that, under parliamentary sovereignty, the UK Parliament's laws prevailed. Parliament can legislate with regard to anyone, anywhere in the world. Thus parliament acts extend to its colonies, regardless of declarations of independence

Ellen Street Estates v The Minister of Health

The court held that parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can bind its successors

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council

The court ruled that the European Communities Act 1972 is a constitutional statute, meaning it cannot be impliedly repealed by later legislation. Repeal or modification of constitutional statutes must be express.

Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope

The House of Lords ruled that once an Act has passed both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent, courts cannot question its validity.

A-G Fulham Corporation

The court held that the Fulham Corporation had acted ultra vires. The statute only allowed them to provide washhouses, not to run a laundry service. This action was deemed illegal as it exceeded their statutory powers.

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal

The House of Lords held that the judge's financial interest amounted to bias, violating the principle of impartiality.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation

The court established the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness, holding that judicial review is only possible if a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it

R v Instan

While criminal liability generally requires a positive act (actus reus), the court held that a failure to act can also constitute actus reus when there is a special relationship that creates a duty to act

R v Pittwood

This established that a failure to act (omission) can constitute the actus reus of a crime when there is a contractual obligation to act.

R v Miller

Although actus reus generally requires a positive act, failure to act can constitute actus reus when a person's previous conduct creates a duty to act.

Hill v Baxter

The court stated that actus reus must be a voluntary act. It clarified that "instinct" involves direct interference with bodily capacities, such as a sudden seizure or being attacked by bees

R v Hayward

The principle that causation exists even if the victim has a pre-existing condition that makes them more susceptible to harm. This follows the "thin skull rule," meaning you must take the victim as you find them.

R v Curley

An intervening act does not break the chain of causation if it is foreseeable

R v Smith

Intervening acts do not break causation if the subsequent event (e.g., medical treatment) is foreseeable

R v R

foreseeability of judicial developments suffices to meet the nulla poena principle, even without legislative changes.

R v Tolson

if a statute does not explicitly mention a mens rea, it can be implied in some cases

Alphacell v Woodward

if a statute does not explicitly mention a mens rea, then in other cases the courts assume strict liability

R v Moloney

Oblique intent applies when a defendant foresees and accepts the result as a natural consequence of their act. However, proving intent requires evidence that the person foresaw and accepted the resul

R v Thornton

Nowadays for voluntary manslaughter, loss of self-control is required but does not need to be “sudden and temporary.”

R v Hatter

For loss of control with voluntary manslaughter, qualifying triggers must be either:

o Fear of serious violence, or

o Things said or done that are:

▪ Extremely grave, and

▪ Create a sense of being seriously wronged.

R v Clinton

Sexual infidelity alone cannot be a qualifying trigger for loss of control

R v Camplin

For the condition of loss of self control to met, one must also look at whether a reasonable person, sharing relevant characteristics (e.g., age, illness), would have acted similarly, depending on the degree of tolerance and self-restraint.

R v Dawes

Loss of self-control cannot be invoked if the defendant started the fight or provoked the violence to claim the defense. So it cannot be invoked in self-induced situations

R v Kathleen Hobson

a requirement for voluntary manslaughter is diminished responsibility. This requires an abnormality of mind caused by a recognized medical condition, which must substantially impair the defendant's ability to understand or control their actions

R v Tandy

To establish diminished responsibility, the defendant must show that their abnormality of mind made it substantially difficult or impossible to control themselves. If the condition is self-induced, such as voluntary drinking, it typically cannot serve as a defense.

R v Dalby

For unlawful act/constructive manslaughter, there must be an unlawful act that directly causes the death.

DPP v Newbury

For unlawful act manslaughter, the act must be:

- Unlawful.

- Dangerous – it must create an objective risk of physical harm. The defendant does not need to realize the danger; it is judged by what a reasonable person would foresee.

R v Lamb

For unlawful act manslaughter, the mens rea must relate to the unlawful act itself, not the result of death.

R v Adomako

Gross negligence is required as mens rea for manslaughter by gross negligence. This is defined as conduct so bad that it shows a disregard for the life or safety of others, amounting to a crime

Andrews v DPP

The House of Lords held that for a conviction of manslaughter by gross negligence, there must be a very high degree of negligence. Simple lack of care that would constitute civil liability is insufficient; the negligence must be so severe that it demonstrates a disregard for the life and safety of others

R v Skelton

death caused by dangerous driving includes driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. A driver’s knowledge of the vehicle's fault contributes to the conviction.

R v Cunningham

The mens rea requirement for this assault was defined as "maliciously," (in the OAPA) which required either intent or recklessness. Cunningham recklessness: it is a subjective test, meaning the defendant must have appreciated and accepted the risk of harm resulting from their actions, thus actually foreseeing (risk) that victim apprehends threat

R v Caldwell

a person is reckless if they ought to have appreciated an obvious risk, even if they did not subjectively realize it

R v G and Another

The House of Lords rejected the objective recklessness test established in Caldwell, emphasizing that for criminal recklessness, only a subjective test applies

R v Parmenter

The court held that for malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm under s. 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the mens rea must be directed at the result

R v Latimer

The doctrine of transferred malice was applied. The intent to harm the intended target was legally transferred to the unintended victim, as the act was unlawful and the harm was a foreseeable consequence of Latimer's actions.

R v Pembliton

The court held that intent could not be transferred from one offense to another. The defendant’s intent to harm individuals could not apply to the offense of property damage.

R v Pitham & Hehl

Appropriation occurs when someone assumes the rights of the owner. Offering to sell furniture constitutes appropriation because it assumes the right to dispose of the property.

R v Morris

Appropriation under the Theft Act 1968 occurs when someone assumes any of the rights of the owner. Changing price labels constitutes appropriation because it assumes the owner's right to set the price of goods

R v Turner

The court held that for theft, property must "belong to another," which includes situations where someone else has control over the property.

R v Easom

The court held that for theft, the defendant must have the intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property.

R v Ghosh

The court introduced the two-stage test for dishonesty:

1. Was the act dishonest according to the standards of ordinary reasonable people? (Objective test).

2. Did the defendant realize that ordinary reasonable people would see the act as dishonest? (Subjective test)

R v M’Naghten

The court developed the M'Naghten Rules, which define the requirements for a defense of insanity:

1. There must be a disease of the mind.

2. This must cause a defect of reason.

3. The defect must result in either:

o A lack of appreciation of the nature and quality of the act, or

o A lack of knowledge that the act was wrong.

R v Kemp

The court held that the term "disease of the mind" is a legal concept, not a medical one. It is up to the court, not medical professionals, to decide whether a condition qualifies as a disease of the mind.

R v Clarke

The court held that for the insanity defense, there must be a "defect of reason," meaning an inability to distinguish right from wrong or understand the nature of the act. Mere absent-mindedness or confusion does not meet this threshold.

R v Windle

For the insanity defense, the defendant must prove they did not know the act was wrong due to a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind.

Hill v Baxter

Automatism, as a general defense, applies when a person acts involuntarily due to an external factor. Such actions are not considered voluntary and can negate criminal liability. Automatism can also be relevant in proving the absence of a voluntary act, which is required for criminal liability.

R v Lipman

Automatism is not a valid defense when it results from self-induced actions, such as voluntary intoxication. The principle of culpa in causa applies—one cannot claim a defense for a situation they knowingly caused themselves.

R v Cairns

For the defense of duress, the threat does not need to be real as long as the defendant genuinely perceives it as such. However, there must be a proportional relationship between the perceived threat and the actions taken.

R v Hudson and Taylor

For duress to be valid, the threat must be operative at the time of the crime.

R v Sharp

Duress cannot be used as a defense if the defendant voluntarily exposed themselves to the risk of coercion, such as by joining a criminal group known for violence.

R v Martin

Duress of circumstances can apply even if the threat is not directed at the defendant but at someone else.

R v Dudley and Stephens

The court held that killing an innocent person to save oneself is not justifiable, even in extreme circumstances.

A-G’s Reference

For self-defense, an imminent attack can justify preparatory actions.

R v Clegg

Decidendi: Self-defense requires actions to be within the proportionality principle. Excessive force, even in self-defense, negates the defense entirely.

R v Gladstone Williams

Mistake is not a separate defense but can negate mens rea if honestly held, even if unreasonable. Williams honestly believed the officer was assaulting the youth.

R v Beckford

The court held that a genuine, albeit mistaken, belief in circumstances necessitating self-defense can negate the unlawfulness of an act.

R v Windle

The judge instructed the jury to consider this fact, leading to the rejection of the insanity defense. So, in principle a judge is passive, but he does instruct the jury which facts they have to take into account on the basis of the law.

The countess of Rutland

The court established the parol evidence rule, stating that the written contract is final, and oral evidence cannot override or contradict it.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

The court held that the advertisement constituted a valid offer to the world at large. If a specific person fulfilled the conditions, they accepted the offer, forming a binding contract.

Harris v Nickerson

The court held that an auction advertisement is merely an invitation to treat, not an offer. At auctions, the bid made by a participant is the actual offer, which the auctioneer may accept by the fall of the hammer.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Boots Cash Chemists

The court held that placing items on shelves is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Customers make an offer by taking the item to the counter, where it can be accepted or rejected by the chemist. The contract is concluded at the point of acceptance at the counter

Harvey v Facey

A statement of price does not constitute an offer. It is an invitation to treat, leaving it up to the seller whether they wish to sell.

Currie v Misa

Consideration was defined as "some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party (the promisor), or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other (the promisee)

Dunlop v Selfridge

Pollock’s definition of consideration: the court held that only parties with privity and consideration can enforce a contract.

Slade’s Case

Executory contracts are binding, even if no act has been performed, as long as mutual promises are made.

White v Bluett

The court held that for consideration to be valid, it must have some value in the eyes of the law

Perera v Vandiyar

The court held that there is no separate tort of eviction. Claims arising from landlord-tenant disputes, including wrongful eviction attempts, must be addressed under contract law

Hargreaves v Bretherton + Roy v Prior

The court held that there is no tort of perjury. This was affirmed in Roy v. Prior. The appropriate remedy for perjury is criminal prosecution, not civil liability

Rookes v Barnard

The court recognized a new tort of intimidation, which occurs when one party uses a threat of unlawful action to coerce another into doing something that causes harm to a third party.

Rylands v Fletcher

Fletcher was held liable under the strict liability principle. The case established that liability could exist in tort without negligence when dangerous activities cause harm

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

The court found no negligence because a reasonable person could not have anticipated the extreme frost. The Waterworks was not liable for the damage.

Winterbottom v Wright

The principle of privity of contract limited claims to those directly involved in the contract.

Donoghue v Stevenson

This case established the modern concept of negligence, allowing claims even without direct contractual relationships (so they broke with privity of contracts.

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co.

This case abolished the strict privity requirement in negligence claims and influenced subsequent decisions, including Donoghue v. Stevenson.

Bolton v Stone

The cricket club was not liable for negligence or nuisance. The low probability of harm made it unreasonable to impose liability.

Hilder v Associated Portland Cement

The court held that a breach of a duty of care (negligence) arises when harm is reasonably foreseeable, and the defendant fails to take steps to prevent it.