CASE SUMMARY: PART 29

Western Fish Products Ltd vs. Penwith District Council & Anor [1981] 2 All ER 204
●Land Law●
“In any event an estoppel could not be raised to prevent a statutory body exercising its statutory discretion or performing its statutory duty”


Wheat vs. Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] 1 All ER 582, HL
●Law of Torts●
“Whenever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realize that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully, then he is an ‘occupier’ and the person coming lawfully there is ‘visitor’”


Wheeler vs. New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1933] 2 KB 669
●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”


Wilde vs. Waters 16 CB 637
●Land Law●
“An article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to show that it was intended all along to continue as a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a chattel”


Wilkins vs. Kannamal [1951] 17 MLJ 99
●Land Law●
“The Torrens law is a system of conveyance, it does not abrogate the principles of equity, and it alters the application of particular rules of equity but only as far as is necessary to achieve its own special objects”


Winthrop Investments Ltd vs. Winns & Ors [1979] 4 ACLRI
●Company Law●
“Main or fundamental or basic object was to improve the general financial position of the company”
Winn vs. Bull [1877] 7 Ch D 29
●Contract Law●
“It is settled that the formula ‘subject to contract’ gives rise to a strong presumption of the necessity of a further formal contract, ‘formal’ be it noted, is not to be understood in the common parlance as being just a ‘mere formality’ of no importance. The principle is clear; it requires cogent evidence to displace this strong presumption”


Woo Yok Wan vs. Loo Pek Chee [1975] 1 MLJ 156
●Land Law●
Ajaib Singh J, “in my opinion the provisions of section 6 of the Civil Law Act 1956, do not exclude the English equitable principle that a lease is void at law for not having complied with legal formalities can be treated as an agreement for a lease which may be enforced in equity. What is precluded by section 6 is the English Law relating to tenure or conveyance or assurance of or succession to any immovable property or any estate, rights or interest therein but the section does not in any way preclude the application of the English principles relating to equitable interest in land”


Wycomble Marsh Garages Ltd. vs. Fowler [1972] 1 W.L.R 1156
●Consumer Law●
“Allowing the appeal, that the mischief which prompted the passing of the Trade Description Act 1968 was that goods might be provided by sale or otherwise with a misleading trade description attached to them”


Zdrojkowski vs. Pacholczak [1959] NSW 382
●Land Law●
“The principle relating to the indefeasibility of the title to the land under Real Property Act an the one hand and the right to rectify documents, which erroneously state the interest to which parties were entitled on the other do not conflict in any way”