Fox vs. Hunter Paterson [1948] W & N 399
●Land Law●
“Anything which amounts to a demand possession, is sufficient to indicate the determination of the landlord’s will”
General Cleansing Contractors vs. Christmas [1953] AC 180
●Law of Torts●
“Even thought standing on the window ledge was a common practice for window cleaners, this was a dangerous practice and the defendant as the employer was liable for not providing a safer system of work”
Geron Ali vs. Emperor [1941] AIR
●Criminal Law●
“We find that the appellant killed Shaz Ali and his daughter Shazda Badu, but that he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time of the occurrence”
Ghulam Mustapha Ghano vs. Emperor [1939] 40 Cri LJ 778
●Criminal Law●
“In short, the ‘reasonable man’ always a somewhat ideal figure, is not a person of identical habits, manners and feelings wherever he may be. The ‘reasonable man’ is the normal man of the some class or community as that to which the accused belongs”
Glasgow Corporation vs. Muir [1943] AC 448
●Law of Torts●
“The standard or foresight of the reasonable man, eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question”
Goh Hooi Yin vs. Lim Teong Ghee & Ors [1990] 3 MLJ 23
“Edgar Joseph Jr J: It is not enough to show that the transfer had the effect of depriving the plaintiff of a known existing right. It must be demonstrated that the transfer was executed with the intention of cheating the plaintiff of such right.”
Gulazam vs. Noorzaman and Saboth[1957] 23 MLJ 45
●Law of Partnership●
Abdul Hamid J in this case held that on the facts of the case there was a partnership between plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff had produced a number of witnesses and the following evidence was given to the court. A) A conversation between the plaintiff and the defendants of the partnership and the witness saw the plaintiff give RM200 to the second defendant. B) The plaintiff told the witness, in the presence of both defendants, that the plaintiff gave RM200 in relation to a business in which he held a share. C) Both defendants admitted the existence of the partnership but maintained that the plaintiff had been paid more than his share. D) An Imam who said in his attempt to effect settlement the second defendant admitted the partnership.
Hall vs. Duke of
●Land Law●
“The owner of minerals is not liable for damage caused to neighboring land by subsidence occasioned by the working of the minerals by his predecessors in title, although the damage did not actually occur until after the owner came into possession”
Hall vs. Wickens Motors (
●Consumer Law●
“Ever since 1887 the offence of applying a false trade description to any goods has been assumed to be an offence if and only if the application of the false trade description was associated with the sale or supply of the goods, in other words that the simple application of a false trade description unconnected with any transaction for sale is not a matter which was struck at by the earlier legislation, nor should be regarded as struck at by this”
Hamlyn vs. Houston & Co [1902] 87 LT 500
●Law of Partnership●
“The bribing partner’s firm was held liable fro the partner’s wrongful act as it was in the ordinary course of business to obtain information about a trade rival”
No comments:
Post a Comment