Cases

Question 1

London & North Eastern Railway Co. v Berryman (1946)

Answer 1

Unfair ruling. Literal interpretation of the law.

Question 2

Scott v Avery

Answer 2

Most consumer contracts include this clause, it forces people if they wish to pursue a claim to go through arbitration.

Question 3

Woolmington v DPP (1935)

Answer 3

It is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty, unless the defendant tries to raise a defence.

Question 4

Marchant and Muntz (2003)

Answer 4

In order to prove guilt or criminal liability, you need to prove that the conduct or consequence was prohibited.

The legal point is that it shows conduct/consequence must be prohibited for an offence to take place.

Question 5

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Answer 5

You can commit an offence involuntarily.

Question 6

R v Mitchell (1983)

Answer 6

It was the actions of the first man that were criminal, but not the falling over the second man.

Question 7

R v Hughes (2013)

Answer 7

Set forward legal causation.

Question 8

R v Roberts (1971)

Answer 8

Mens Rea for an underlying offence is sufficient Mens Rea for a S47 offence.

There is no need for the defendant to intend or to be reckless in order to commit Actual Bodily Harm.

Question 9

R v a savages (1991)

Answer 9

Reinforces the position of R v Roberts (1971), in the intention of application of unlawful use of force, unintentionally constituted a S47 offence.

Question 10

JCC v Eisenhower (1983)

Answer 10

There must be a cut in the internal skin in order for it to constitute as GBH, if it’s exterior then it is ABH.

Question 11

R v Bollom (2004)

Answer 11

Depending on the victim’s age and health, it should be taken into consideration.

Question 12

R v Burstow (1997)

Answer 12

If it leads to serious mental damage which requires extensive and serious treatment then it should be considered.

Question 13

R v Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)

Answer 13

Changes by the Home Secretary to the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme had gone beyond the delegated powers given in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Question 14

Aylesbury Mushroom case (1972)

Answer 14

The Minister of Labour had to consult ‘any organisation appearing to him to be representative of substantial numbers of employers engaging in the activity concered’

Those affected should be contacted for consultation.

Question 15

R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte National Union of Teachers (2000)

Answer 15

A statutory instrument setting conditions for appraisal and access to higher rates of pay for teachers was beyond the powers given to the Education Secretary by the Educaifon Act 1996.

The procedure was unfair due to there only being four days of consultations.

Question 16

R (Rogers) v Swindon NHS Trust 2006

Answer 16

A woman with breast cancer was prescribed a non-approved drug Herceptin. The NHS refused to provide her with the drug, citing it was not exceptional. However, it did provide the drug for some patients.

This was ruled to be in Ultra Vires.

Question 17

Whitely v Chappell (1868)

Answer 17

Literal interpretation of the law. Literal rule.

Question 18

Pepper v Hart (1993)

Answer 18

Allows Hansard to be used as an extrinsic aid.

Question 19

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Answer 19

Also known as the ‘snail in the bottle’ case. There were two ladies who went out for coffee, one ordered an ice cream float. Once finished, she found a decomposed snail at the bottom of the glass.

She eventually got ill, and decided to take it to court and won.

The neighbour principle is the idea that the manufacturer owes a duty of care to the customer.

All us in different times will have a duty of care for others.

Question 20

Roland v Fletcher

Answer 20

A special tort where there has been a leak onto one property onto another.

Question 21

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire police (1988)

Answer 21

Floodgates principle, you cannot sue the police in the course of their duties.

Question 22

Robinson (2018)

Answer 22

The police can be sued, but if they’ve been negligent in the course of their duty, you can’t sue them if they fail to stop/solve a crime.

Question 23

Wagon Mound (1961)

Answer 23

Oil leaked from a ship, which found its way to the dock and burst into flames.

Burnt down a warehouse, the verdict was that no one could have foreseen it.

Question 24

Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)

Answer 24

Parents are responsible for allowing their children to enter an occupier’s land.

Question 25

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)

Answer 25

The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 states that an occupier should expect children to be less careful than adults.

Question 26

Ratcliffe v McConnell (1999)

Answer 26

The occupier is not liable to inform the trespasser of obvious injuries that may be sustained.

Question 27

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003)

Answer 27

The occupier cannot be faulted if someone is injured in a specific place at that day or year.

Question 28

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)

Answer 28

The House of Lords ruled that in order to be liable under the 1984 OL Act, the occupier had to be responsible for the danger whereas the claimant in the case had created the danger.

It is reasonable for the council not to have moved forward with the build due to the lack of funds.

Question 29

Higgs v Foster (2004)

Answer 29

Despite the occupier knowing of the danger, they could not have anticipated the Police Officer’s presence.

Question 30

Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004

Answer 30

As the occupier did not know of the danger, they could not have been held responsible.

Question 31

Known v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)

Answer 31

An 11 year old went out of a fire door to show off to his friends, he fell - it was judged that the child was t fault and no claim could be made.

Question 32

Baldacchino v West Wittering (2008)

Answer 32

A 14 year old boy climbed onto a navigation buoy, the child was a lawful visitor to the beach but a trespasser on the beacon.

Question 33

Moloney (1985)

Answer 33

Foresight of consequence is only evident from which intention can be inferred.

Question 34

Nedrick (1986)

Answer 34

Court of Appeal suggested juries ask themselves two questions:
1. How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant’s voluntary act?
2. Did they foresee the consequence? The jury is not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the act.

Question 35

Byrne (1960)

Answer 35

Committed murder, sexual predator etc.

Had a recognised mental disorder and was not guilty of murder, but sent to a psychiatric facility.

Question 36

Herrington (1972)

Answer 36

First time the House of Lords used the practice statement in a civil case

Question 37

Shivpuri (1986)

Answer 37

First time the House of Lords used the practice statement in a criminal case.

Question 38

Anderson v Ryan (1985)

Answer 38

The practice statement was used to override this case.