Judicial Precedent Cases

Question 1

Schweppes Ltd Registar of Restricted Trading Agreements (1965)

Answer 1

Stare Decisis case
- Decision was made in case of Schweppes Ltd (1965) in regards to a point of law
- Within hours, the same point of law arose on the case of Automatic Telephone

Question 2

R v R (1991)

Answer 2

Persuasive Precedent- Courts Lower in Hierarchy
- Man can be guilty of raping his wife.
- HoL agreed with and followed the same reasoning as the Court of Appeal

Question 3

R v Howe (1987)
R v Gotts (1992)

Answer 3

Persuasive Precedent- Statements made obiter dicta
R v Howe:
- HoL ruled duress couldn’t be a defence to a charge of murder.
- As an obiter dicta statement within judgement, was also stated that duress wouldn’t be available as defence to attempted murder.

R v Gotts:
- Defendant charged with attempted murder and tried to use defence of Duress
- Obiter statement from Howe was followed as persuasive precedent by Court of Appeal.

Question 4

R v Chan Fook (1994)

Answer 4

Ratio Decidendi
- French student lodging at house of Mrs Fox- engaged to appellant
- Engagement ring went missing, was accused of stealing
- Appellant interrogated him and threatened him with violence if ring wasn’t returned.
- Ratio in this case states that actual bodily harm includes pyschiatric injury to victim.

Question 5

Herrington v British Railway Board (1972)

Answer 5

First major use of Practice Statement in Civil Law
- 6 yo boy electrocuted when he wandered onto a live railway line
- Gap in fence that surrounded railway line- defendant aware
- Under existing authority, no duty of care owed to trespassers.
- HoL used Practice Statement and held that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the child trespasser.

Question 6

R v Shivpuri (1986)

Answer 6

First use of Practice Statement in Criminal Law
- Defendant arrested by Customs Officials while in possession of suitcase- thought to be filled with drugs, but it wasn’t
- Convicted for attempt
- Appeal dismissed, overruling case of Anderton v Ryan

Question 7

Balfour v Balfour (1919)
Merritt v Merritt(1971)

Answer 7

Distinguishing
Balfour v Balfour:
- Claim was unsuccessful as there was no intention to create legal relations
- Simply a domestic arrangement between a husband and wife, no contract

Merritt v Merritt:
- Merritt’s claim successful as court could distinguish between facts and found that there was intention to create legal relations
- Therefore was a contract.