Friday, January 1, 2010


Southport Corporation vs. Esso Petroleum Ltd. [1953] 2 All ER 1204
●Law of Torts●
“The safety of human lives belongs to a different scale of values from the safety of the property. The two are beyond comparison and the necessity for saving life has at all times been considered a proper ground inflicting such damages as may be necessary on another’s property”

Spicer vs. Smee [1946] 1 All ER 489
●Law of Torts●
“Private nuisance arises out of a state of things on one man’s property whereby his neighbour’s property is exposed to danger”

State of Gujaret vs. Bhand Jusub Mamad [1982] Cri LJ 1691 (Gujaret HC India)
●Criminal Law●
“It has been accepted by the Court that when a person loses the self control under grave and sudden provocation, he loses all faculties of calculation and balance of mind and the court would not weight in golden scales as to how many blows would be sufficient to convince a court that the act done by the accused was under grave and sudden provocation”

Street vs. Mountford [1985] AC 809
●Land Law●
“There can be no tenancy unless the occupier enjoys exclusive possession but an occupier who enjoys exclusive possession is not necessary a tenant. He may be an owner in fee simple, a trespasser, a mortgagee in possession, an object of charity, or a service occupier”

Stuart vs. Kingston [1923] 32 CLR 309
●Land Law●
“Fraud is some 'consciously dishonest act' that can be brought home to the registered proprietor whose title is being challenged”

Suba Singh vs. PP [1962] 28 MLJ 122
●Criminal Law●
“You must put the question of drunkenness out of your minds when you come to consider your verdict, for, as I have already told you, voluntary drunkenness is no defense”

Sulong bin Nain vs. PP [1947] 13 MLJ 138 (CA, Malayan Union)
●Criminal Law●
“A mistake of law does not excuse. Now mistake, as this term is understood in jurisprudence, is used in the sense of misconception or error of judgment not intended to produce the result attained”

Sungei Way Leasing Sdn Bhd vs. Lian Seng Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors (Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd & Anor, Interveners) [1989] 2 MLJ 123
●Land Law●
“The charge was not entitled to the equipment affixed to the land as there was a retention of title clause in favour of the plaintiffs and also because it did not form part of the charge’s security as at the date of the charge, the equipment had yet to be affixed thereon”

Sunrise Sdn Bhd vs. First Profile (M) Sdn Bhd [1996] 3 MLJ 553
●Company Law●
Choong Siew Fai CJ held that, “for all intents and purposes, the subsidiary was not only wholly-owned by the holding company, but was also controlled and managed by the holding company. In case where there are signs of separate personalities of companies being used to enable persons to evade their contractual obligations or duties, the court would disregard the notional separateness of the companies.”

Survade vs. State of Gujaret [1972]
●Criminal Law●
“Looking to the plain language of s 100 of the Indian Penal Code it appears that, the question whether a person has a right of privet defence in a given case depends on the manner in and the ferocity with which he is attacked and the apprehension in his mind resulting from such an attack and not on the question whether he was armed or otherwise”

No comments:

Post a Comment