CASE SUMMARY: PART 12

Higgins vs. Beauchamp [1914] All ER Rep 937
●Law of Partnership●
“Where the partnership is a trading firm, a partner has implied authority to borrow money on the firm’s credit, as this within the ordinary course of business of a trading partnership”


Holland vs. Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 328
●Land Law●
“Where an article is affixed by the owner of the fee, though only affixed by bolts and screws, it is to be considered part of the land, at all events when the object of setting up the article is to enhance the value of the premises to which it is annexed for the purpose to which those premises are applied”


Holman vs. Johnson [1775] 1 Cowp 341: 98 ER 1120
●Contract Law●
“No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff’s own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa (from a wrong done) or the transgression of a positive law of this country, then the court says he has no right to be assisted”


Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004
●Law of Torts●
“Donoghue vs. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 may be regarded as a milestone, and the well-known passage in Lord Atkin’s speech should, I think, be regarded as a statement of principle, it will require qualification in new circumstances. But I think the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion”

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd vs. Kawasaki Kishen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26
●Contract Law●
“There are, however, many contractual undertakings which cannot be categorized as being conditions or warranties. Of such undertakings all that can be predicted is that some breaches will and others will not give rise to an event which will deprive the party not in default of substantially the whole benefit which it was intended that he should obtain from the contract”


Hong Leong Bank Bhd vs. Goh Sin Khai [2005] 3 MLJ 154
●Land Law●
“The application of bare trust concept on the issue whether financier could realize his security without registering a National Land Code charge and applying to court for an order for sale”


Howard Smith Ltd vs. Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] AC 821
●Company Law●
The Privy Council said that, “directors, within their management power, may take decisions against the wishes of the majority of shareholders, and the majority of shareholders cannot control them in the exercise of these powers while they remain in office.”


Hunter vs. Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
●Law of Torts●
“Inconvenience or discomfort may suffice to establish a case of intentional harassment”




Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd vs. Shatwell [1964] 2 All ER 999
●Law of Torts●
“Volenti non fit injuria was no defence to an action by an employee against his employer for breach of the employer’s statutory duties”


In the Goods of Williams Russell [1813] 2 Ky Ec 6
●EQUITY●
“WR bequeathed the residue of his estate to a lady and her children except $200 which was given to his executors. The estate stands as $4,352.32. The executor had charged an additional 5% on the estate as their commission. The question before the court was whether the executors were entitled to the $200, being the legacy bequeathed to them, and the 5% commission. The court applied the equitable doctrine of election where the executors must elect which of the two they will take. They are not entitled to both legacy and commission at the same time”


In Residues Treatment & Trading Co Ltd vs. Southern Resources Ltd [1988] 14 ACLR 569
●Company Law●
“It is well established that the allotment of shares for the purpose of ensuring the control of existing directors by defeating a takeover bid or of placing control of the company in the hands of a particular shareholder or group of shareholders is an abuse of the powers of the directors and a breach of their duty to the company”