CASE SUMMARY: PART 23

Rights of US Nationals in Morocco Case (US vs. France) 1952 ICJ Rep 176
●Public International Law●
“Morocco had not lost its personality by virtue of a protectorate agreement, but merely that it had entered into a contractual relationship with France whereby the latter would conduct some of its international responsibilities”


Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd vs. Dumbreck [1929] AC 358
●Law of Torts●
“In the case of persons who are not there by invitation, the occupier has no duty to ensure that the premises are safe, but he is bound not to create a trap or to allow a concealed danger to exist upon the said premises”


Rose & Frank Co. vs. J.R.Crompton & Bros[1923] AC 445
●Law of Partnership●
Lord Atkin explained that “in order for a contract to exist, the parties must expressly or impliedly intent their relations as a legal relation.”






Rylands vs. Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265
●Law of Torts●
“We think that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril and if he does no to do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape”


S vs. Goliath [1972] 3 SA 1 (South Africa)
●Criminal Law●
“Should the criminal law then state that compulsion could never be a defence to a charge of murder, it would demand that a person who killed another under duress, whatever the circumstances, would have to comply with a higher standard than that demanded of the average person”


Saywell vs. Pope[1979] STC 824
●Law of Partnership●
“If there is no participation in the business then, it seems that even if there is an intention to draw up a partnership agreement and some discussion between the parties as to the consequences of it, the courts will not declare a partnership.”


Schmidt vs. Kepong Prospecting Ltd & Ors [1964] 2 MLJ 416
●Contract Law●
“A person who is not a party to a contract cannot take advantage of provisions of the contract”




Sedleigh-Denfield vs. O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880
●Law of Torts●
“A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be inferred with. It is impossible to give any precise or universal formula, but it may broadly be said that a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in, a particular society”


Sheikh Amin bin Salleh vs. Chop Hup Seng [1974] 2 MLJ 125
●Law of Torts●
“A person who consents to the dangerous thing being brought to a place from which it may cause him injury if it escapes has no right of action unless he can prove negligence”


Shepherd Homes Ltd vs. Sandham [1987] Ch. 340
●EQUITY●
“The case has to be unusually strong and clear before a mandatory interlocutory injunction will be granted”