CASE SUMMARY: PART 15

Lambe vs. Eames [1871] 6 Ch App 597
●TRUST●
“T left his estate to his widow ‘to be at her disposal in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and family’. This was held to be ineffective to create a trust, the widow took absolutely”


Latchmi Koeri vs. State of Bihar [1960] AIR Pat 62
●Criminal Law●
“In view of the injuries caused, I am perfectly satisfied that the appellant intended to cause very much more harm than was necessary for his defense, in fact he appears to have inflicted most of the injuries including the fatal one at a time when the havildar was lying helpless under him”


Lazard Bros. & Co. Ltd vs. Fairfield Properties Co. (Mayfair) Ltd [1978] Conv. 184
●EQUITY●
“If between the plaintiff and defendant it was just that the plaintiff should obtain the remedy, the court ought not to withhold it merely because the plaintiff had been guilty of delay”


Lee Kim Leng vs. R [1964] 30 MLJ 285 (HC, Singapore)
●Criminal Law●
“In the Indian Penal case of Omkar Ram Pratap [1902] it was held that to impose criminal liability under section 304(A), it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligent. It must have been the causa causans, not enough that it may have been causa since qua non”


Lee Sai Yan vs. PP (Unreported. Magistrate’s Appeal No 90 of 1980 Subordinate Court of Singapore)
●Criminal Law●
“The statutory duty imposed upon the accused was in s 34(8) Factories Act. His neglect was that he omitted to perform the duty imposed by law, permitting the deceased to enter the board hole when he was not wearing a breathing apparatus and when no tests were concluded”


Lian Keow Sdn Bhd In Liquidation & Anor vs. Overseas Credit Finance (M) Bhd & Ors [1988] 2 MLJ 449.
●Land Law●
“The Malaysian Torrens System does not prevent or restrict the creation of beneficial interests in land. It does not abrogate the principles of equity but alters the application of particular rules of equity in so far as necessary to achieve its special objects.”


Lloyds Bank Ltd vs. Bundy [1975] QB 326
●EQUITY●
“The law recognizes the principles that the relief against harsh or unfair contracts may be granted of the ground of inequality of bargaining power”


Lock International plc vs. Beswick [1989] 1 WLR 1268
●EQUITY●
“Anton Piller orders are frequently sought in actions against former employees who have joined competitors or started competing business of their own”



London & Clydeside Estates Ltd vs. Aberdeen District Council & Anor [1980] 1 WLR 182
●Land Law●
“The requirement that a certificate of alternative development in compulsory purchase proceedings should include information as to the rights of appeal was mandatory and the omission of it vitiated the certificate”


Lord Bernstein of Leigh vs. Skyviews and General Ltd [1977] 2All ER 902
●Law of Torts●
“The problem is to balance the rights of an owner to enjoy the use of his land against the rights of the general public to take advantage of all the science now offers in the use of air space. This balance is, best struck, by restricting the rights of an owner in the airspace above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the airspace than any other member of the public”


Lotus case [1927] PCIJ Ser. A No 10
●Public International Law●
“Permanent Court of International Justice: the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that, failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary, it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another’s state”