CASE SUMMARY: PART 1

Aas vs. Benham [1891] 2 Ch 244

●Law of Partnership●

“It is clear law that every partner must account to the firm for every benefit derived by him without the consent of his co-partner from any transaction concerning the partnership or any use by him of the partnership property, name or business connection, but the fact of this case do not bring it within this principle”

Abdul Gaffor vs. Mohamed Kassim & Ors[1931-1932] FMSLR 19

●Law of Partnership●

“Sharing of the profits as remuneration for an employee does not of itself make the employee a partner” “Elphinstone CJ held that the signatories of the agreement bear their shares and it would be indicative of a partnership. However, in this case the court held that there is no partnership as the signatories are not to bear any losses but the signatories will receive simply the profit. Hence, the agreement did not constitute any partnership”.

Abdul Ghani bin Hamid vs. Abdul Nasir bin Abdul Jabbar & Anor [1995] 4 CLJ 317

●Law of Torts●

“The statutory duty under the regulations was absolute and once a plaintiff proves that such a duty has not been complied with, the breach is actionable without the plaintiff having to prove any lack of care or diligence on the part of the defendants”

AG for Ceylon vs. Don John Perera [1953] AC 200

●Criminal Law●

“The court were of opinion that while it was undoubtedly the law in England that the act of retaliation must be reasonably commensurate with the provocation received this was not the law of Ceylon”

Aik Ming (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors vs. Chang Ching Chuen & Ors and another appeal [1995] 2 MLJ 770

●Company Law●

“Unless the article of a company provide to the contrary, a meeting of a board of directors is not valid unless reasonable notice of it and the relevant agenda that is to be discussed is given to the directors. As the business conducted at the subsequent meetings of the company’s board were dependent for their validity upon the propriety of the meeting which had failed to stand up to curial scrutiny, those later meeting were also void”

Aiken vs. Kingborough Corporation [1939] 62 CLR 179

●Law of Torts●

“The general grounds for throwing a duty of care upon the public authority appear in the already well-known statement of Lord Atkin in Donoghue vs. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at pp 579-582”

Allen vs. Gold Reefs of West Africa [1900] 1 Ch 656

●Company Law●

“Under the Common Law, directors must act bona fide and for the benefit of the company as a whole. The test is whether the directors have exercised their discretion bona fide in what they and not the courts considers, is interests of the company and not for a collateral purpose.”

Altertext Inc. vs. Advanced Data Communications Ltd [1985] 1 All ER 395

●EQUITY●

“An Anton Piller order is an in personam order. It is an order which it is within the power of the court to make in an action in which the court the court has jurisdiction”

Anglo Norwegian Fishers Case [1951] ICJ Rep116

●Public International Law●

“The degree of consistency required may vary according to the subject matter of the rule in dispute”

Ashbury Railway Carriage Co. vs. Riche [1875] L.R. 7 H.L. 653.

●Company Law●

“With regard to the Memorandum of Association, that is, as it were, the charter, and defines the limitation of the powers of a company to be established under the Act. With regard to the Articles of Association, those Articles play a part subsidiary to the Memorandum of Association. They accept the memorandum of association as the charter of incorporation of the company, and so accepting it, the articles proceed to define the duties, the rights and the powers of the governing body as between themselves and the company at large and the mode and the form in which changes in the internal regulations of the company may from time to time be made.”