Nicaragua vs. USA [1986] ICJ Rep 14
●Public International Law●
“Opinio juris may be deducted from the General Assembly and the court gives example of declaration on Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the charter of UN”
Noble vs. Harrison [1926] 2 KB 332
●Law of Torts●
“A person is liable for a nuisance constituted by the state of his property: (1) if he causes it, (2) if by the neglect of some duty he allowed it to arise, and (3) if, when it has arisen without it has arisen without his own act or default, he omits to remedy it within a reasonable time after he did or ought to have become aware of it”
Noel Kenneth Davidson vs. Firm Corp Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 AMR 862
●Law of Torts●
“When a cheque is involved the conversion is not of the money derived from the cashing of the cheque or the amount credited to an account, but that of the cheque itself, the damages arising there from is the value of the cheque. A plaintiff can only succeed in an action for the conversion, if he had, when the unlawful act was committed, the possession, or the immediate possession, of the chattels unlawfully dealt with”
Northern Countries Securities Ltd. vs. Jackson & Ateeples Ltd. [1974] 1 W.L.R.
●Company Law●
“A director is an agent, who casts his vote to decide in what manner his principal shall act through the collective agency of the board of directors”
Northern Electric Co Ltd vs. Frank Warkentin Ltd et al [1972] 27 DLR (3d) 519
●Law of Partnership●
“The sharing of gross returns under a lease did not itself create a partnership”
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases ICJ Reports [1969], 3
●Public International Law●
“Only the first three articles of the Convention were emergent or pre-existing customary law. The court concluded further, that the provision on of shelf areas in Article 6 of the Convention had not become a rule of customary law by virtue of the subsequent practice of states and, in particular, of non-parties”
Oh Hiam & Ors vs. Tham Kong [1980] 2 MLJ 159
●Land Law●
“The Torrens system is designed to provide simplicity and certitude in transfers of land, which is amply achieved without depriving equity of its ability to exercise its jurisdiction in personam on grounds of conscience”
Ong Chat Pang vs. Valliappa Chettiar [1971] 1 MLJ 224
●Land Law●
“Malaysian indefeasibility provision appears to contain a wide saving proviso which makes a registered title liable to defeat by operation of law, and this proviso is wide enough to bring in the operation of section 26”
Ong Cheng Neo vs. Yap Cheah Neo [1875] 6 LR 381
●EQUITY●
“A Chinese woman died and through her will ‘made over’ to her executors all her property, in trust, for the purpose to be mentioned. These were found to be obscure and uncertain. She also directed that some portions of a house should neither be mortgaged nor sold, but kept as ‘a family residence’ without mentioning the period for which the house should be kept like that. Court held that the gift as void infringing the rule against perpetuity”
Ong Hoo Hoong vs. Kong Yin Weng [1965] 2 MLJ 97
●Law of Torts●
“One co-owner of land can be only brought an action of trespass against the other if he has been actually ousted or dispossessed of the land. Each co-owner is entitled to possession of the whole land, so that if one turns the other off the land or part of it, it is a trespass”
Friday, January 1, 2010
CASE SUMMARY: PART 17
Mercantile Bank Ltd vs. The Official Assignee of the Property of How Han Teh [1969] 2 MLJ 196,
●Land Law●
“It has not been shown that there are express words in the statue which preclude me from enforcing the equitable rights of the applicants. Under the bankruptcy law the trustee in bankruptcy is a statutory assignee who takes the bankrupt’s property subject to the equities and liabilities which affect it in the bankrupt’s hands at the time the bankruptcy was committed”
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd vs. Garrod [1962] 3 All ER 1103
●Law of Partnership●
“It will be observed that what is done in carrying on the partnership business in the usual way in which business of a like kind are carried on, is made the test of authority where no actual authority or ratification can be proved”
Merrit vs. Commonwealth [1935] 180 SE 395
●Criminal Law●
“While a person may be guilty of murder though there was no actual intent to kill, he cannot be guilty of an attempt to commit murder unless he has a specific intent to kill”
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vs. Protector [1923] AC 253
●Law of Torts●
“The leading distinction between an invitee and a licensee is that, in the case of the former, invitor and invitee have a common interest, while, in the latter, licensor and licensees have none”
Meux vs. Jacobs LR 7 HL 481
●Land Law●
“A mortgage of premises will pass the fixtures upon the premises. Fixtures attached to the property after the date of the mortgage will also (unless under special stipulation) pass to the mortgage”
Mir Sarwarjan vs. Fakhruddin [1912] 39 I.A. 1
●EQUITY●
“A contract which can only be enforced at the option of one party cannot be specifically enforced”
Mohammad bin Buyong vs. Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Gombak & Ors [1982] 2 MLJ 53
●Land Law●
“An instrument of dealing presented before the publication in the Gazette of a notification of forfeiture can still be registered”
Munney Khan [1971] 57 IR SC 1491
●Criminal Law●
“The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by statute, available only when the circumstances clearly justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed of as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive, or retributive purpose”
Murray vs. Davis [1930] S.S.L.R 229
●Law of Partnership●
“The plaintiff gave power to the defendant who was a company promoter with the intention that the defendant will invest the plaintiff asset in the defendant business which was Chemor, Penawat and Tongkah. It was held that in the first and second venture are considered, there was no partnership as there was no agreement by the plaintiff. There is partnership in the third venture because there was an agreement between them which constitute that the defendant would accept any definite remuneration for the money he had invested”
Nain Boon Keow vs. Letchman Chetty [1885] Ky 85
●EQUITY●
“A doctor entrusted his savings with his wife. Before her death she spent all his money without his knowledge including buying some land for $600 through the mortgage of the land to Letchman to whom she was introduced as a widow. Letchman made no further enquires about the woman. The wife died and the mortgage money remained unpaid. Letchman gave notice for the sale of land. The doctor commenced a suit against Letchman. Court applied the equitable principle ‘whatever is sufficient to put the party to an inquiry, is good notice in equity’. Court hold that the defendant, in dealing with the woman, should have satisfied himself of her true position. Court has no doubt that negligence such as this is a form of constructive notice. The deed of mortgage is therefore declared void and ordered to be cancelled.”
Ng Kheng Yeow vs. Chiah Ah Foo [1987] 2 CLJ 108
●EQUITY●
“The entry of a private caveat by one party does not necessarily mean that he has better priority against another who has not as yet lodged one”
●Land Law●
“It has not been shown that there are express words in the statue which preclude me from enforcing the equitable rights of the applicants. Under the bankruptcy law the trustee in bankruptcy is a statutory assignee who takes the bankrupt’s property subject to the equities and liabilities which affect it in the bankrupt’s hands at the time the bankruptcy was committed”
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd vs. Garrod [1962] 3 All ER 1103
●Law of Partnership●
“It will be observed that what is done in carrying on the partnership business in the usual way in which business of a like kind are carried on, is made the test of authority where no actual authority or ratification can be proved”
Merrit vs. Commonwealth [1935] 180 SE 395
●Criminal Law●
“While a person may be guilty of murder though there was no actual intent to kill, he cannot be guilty of an attempt to commit murder unless he has a specific intent to kill”
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vs. Protector [1923] AC 253
●Law of Torts●
“The leading distinction between an invitee and a licensee is that, in the case of the former, invitor and invitee have a common interest, while, in the latter, licensor and licensees have none”
Meux vs. Jacobs LR 7 HL 481
●Land Law●
“A mortgage of premises will pass the fixtures upon the premises. Fixtures attached to the property after the date of the mortgage will also (unless under special stipulation) pass to the mortgage”
Mir Sarwarjan vs. Fakhruddin [1912] 39 I.A. 1
●EQUITY●
“A contract which can only be enforced at the option of one party cannot be specifically enforced”
Mohammad bin Buyong vs. Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Gombak & Ors [1982] 2 MLJ 53
●Land Law●
“An instrument of dealing presented before the publication in the Gazette of a notification of forfeiture can still be registered”
Munney Khan [1971] 57 IR SC 1491
●Criminal Law●
“The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by statute, available only when the circumstances clearly justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed of as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive, or retributive purpose”
Murray vs. Davis [1930] S.S.L.R 229
●Law of Partnership●
“The plaintiff gave power to the defendant who was a company promoter with the intention that the defendant will invest the plaintiff asset in the defendant business which was Chemor, Penawat and Tongkah. It was held that in the first and second venture are considered, there was no partnership as there was no agreement by the plaintiff. There is partnership in the third venture because there was an agreement between them which constitute that the defendant would accept any definite remuneration for the money he had invested”
Nain Boon Keow vs. Letchman Chetty [1885] Ky 85
●EQUITY●
“A doctor entrusted his savings with his wife. Before her death she spent all his money without his knowledge including buying some land for $600 through the mortgage of the land to Letchman to whom she was introduced as a widow. Letchman made no further enquires about the woman. The wife died and the mortgage money remained unpaid. Letchman gave notice for the sale of land. The doctor commenced a suit against Letchman. Court applied the equitable principle ‘whatever is sufficient to put the party to an inquiry, is good notice in equity’. Court hold that the defendant, in dealing with the woman, should have satisfied himself of her true position. Court has no doubt that negligence such as this is a form of constructive notice. The deed of mortgage is therefore declared void and ordered to be cancelled.”
Ng Kheng Yeow vs. Chiah Ah Foo [1987] 2 CLJ 108
●EQUITY●
“The entry of a private caveat by one party does not necessarily mean that he has better priority against another who has not as yet lodged one”
CASE SUMMARY: PART 16
Low Pui Heng vs. Tham Kok Cheong [1965] 31 MLJ 212
●Law of Partnership●
“Majority partner’s decision to convert the partnership into a limited company will prevail notwithstanding the dissent of a minority”
LPTB vs. Upson [1949] AC 155
●Law of Torts●
“A claim for damages for breach of a statutory duty intended to protect a person in the position of the particular plaintiff, is a specific common law right which is not be confused in essence with a claim of negligence”
M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd vs. Siland Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 294
●Land Law●
“The right of discharge of a charge is available at the instance of a charger and no other”
Maclaine Watson vs. Dept of Trade and Industry [1989] 3 All ER 523
●Public International Law●
“Treaty is a contract between the governments of two or more sovereign states”
Mahadevan vs. Manilal & Sons [1984] 1 MLJ 266
●EQUITY●
“The Code is silence as to the effect of securities which do not conform to the Code’s charge or lien. Therefore equitable charge and liens are permissible under Malaysian Land Law”
Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang vs. Boey Siew Than & Ors [1978] 2 MLJ 156
●Law of Torts●
“It is clear that a nuisance is a public nuisance if within its sphere which is the neighborhood, it materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the subjects of the State”
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education vs. Commercial and General Investment Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1593
●Contract Law●
“I am opinion that the acceptance communicated to the offeror by any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will conclude the contract”
Mansell vs. Griffin [1908] 1 KB 160
●Criminal Law●
“It seems to me that the authority to administer moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, which any parent who sends a child to school is presumed to give the authorities, extends to the mistress occupying the position which the defendant occupied in his school”
Malayan United Finance Berhad vs. Tay Lay Soon [1991] 1 MLJ 504
●Land Law●
“English principle such as the “equitable mortgage” is unacceptable in this country. This is because the English law principle in this perspective is prohibited from being used”
Margreat Chua vs. Ho Siew Kiew [1961] MLJ 173
●Land Law●
“Court ordered specific performance for a lease which indirectly amounted to enforcing an unregistered lease. Here, court gave effect to the intention of parties notwithstanding the absence of legal requirements.”
●Law of Partnership●
“Majority partner’s decision to convert the partnership into a limited company will prevail notwithstanding the dissent of a minority”
LPTB vs. Upson [1949] AC 155
●Law of Torts●
“A claim for damages for breach of a statutory duty intended to protect a person in the position of the particular plaintiff, is a specific common law right which is not be confused in essence with a claim of negligence”
M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd vs. Siland Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 294
●Land Law●
“The right of discharge of a charge is available at the instance of a charger and no other”
Maclaine Watson vs. Dept of Trade and Industry [1989] 3 All ER 523
●Public International Law●
“Treaty is a contract between the governments of two or more sovereign states”
Mahadevan vs. Manilal & Sons [1984] 1 MLJ 266
●EQUITY●
“The Code is silence as to the effect of securities which do not conform to the Code’s charge or lien. Therefore equitable charge and liens are permissible under Malaysian Land Law”
Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang vs. Boey Siew Than & Ors [1978] 2 MLJ 156
●Law of Torts●
“It is clear that a nuisance is a public nuisance if within its sphere which is the neighborhood, it materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the subjects of the State”
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education vs. Commercial and General Investment Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1593
●Contract Law●
“I am opinion that the acceptance communicated to the offeror by any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will conclude the contract”
Mansell vs. Griffin [1908] 1 KB 160
●Criminal Law●
“It seems to me that the authority to administer moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, which any parent who sends a child to school is presumed to give the authorities, extends to the mistress occupying the position which the defendant occupied in his school”
Malayan United Finance Berhad vs. Tay Lay Soon [1991] 1 MLJ 504
●Land Law●
“English principle such as the “equitable mortgage” is unacceptable in this country. This is because the English law principle in this perspective is prohibited from being used”
Margreat Chua vs. Ho Siew Kiew [1961] MLJ 173
●Land Law●
“Court ordered specific performance for a lease which indirectly amounted to enforcing an unregistered lease. Here, court gave effect to the intention of parties notwithstanding the absence of legal requirements.”
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”
●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”
CASE SUMMARY: PART 14
Kapoor Singh vs. Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Mohamed Noor [1948] MLJ 29
●Land Law●
“If the word ‘attachment’ is strictly limited in its meaning to the form of attachment provided by Civil Procedure Code at the time when the Malay Reservation Enactment was passed, then the appointment of a receiver is not attachment within the meaning of that Enactment and the appointment of a receiver is not prohibited”
Karuppiah Chettiar vs. Subramaniam [1971] 2 MLJ 116
●Land Law●
“When the purchaser made the full purchase price payment, the vendor (register-proprietor) only acted as the bare trustee to the property on behalf of the purchaser”
Keith Spicer Ltd vs. Mansel [1920] 1 All ER 462
●Law of Partnership●
“There was no evidence that M and B were carrying “on business in common with a view of profit” within the meaning of the English Partnership Act 1980, which is in pari material with section 3 (1) of the Partnership Act 1961. The evidence merely showed that they were preparing to carry on business as a company as soon as they could.”
Kensington BC vs. Riley [1972] RTR 122
●Consumer Law●
“In deciding whether a description is false or not, the court will consider statements in their context, to determine the effect on the ordinary consumer”
Khoo Hock Leong vs. Lim Ang Kee [1888] 4 Ky 353
●EQUITY●
“In an action for the recovery of land, court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession but also found that the defendant in honest belief that the land was his spent money on the improvements to it. Court applied the maxim ‘he who seeks equity must do equity’ and ordered the defendant to be compensated for his improvements”
Khoo Yoke Wah vs. Lee Choo Yam Holding Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ 414
●Law of Partnership●
“Death of any partners are dissolved the partnership. It mean that the death of any partners are cause the partnership dissolved”
King-Emperor vs. Tha By Aw [1907] 4 BLR 315 (Chief Court, Lower Burma)
●Criminal Law●
“Whenever the words ‘fraud’ or ‘intent to defraud’ or ‘fraudulently’ occur in the definition of crime, two elements at least are essential to the commission of the crime, namely, first, deceit or an intention to deceive, or in some cases mere secrecy and secondly either actual injury or possible injury or an intent to expose some person either to actual injury or to a risk of possible injury by means of that deceit or secrecy”
KM Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra [1962] AIR SC 605
●Criminal Law●
“The question that the court has to consider is whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as the accused was would have reacted to the confession of adultery by his wife in the manner in which the accused did”
Kuldip Singh & Anor vs. Lembaga Letrik Negara & Anor [1983] 1 MLJ 256
●Land Law●
“If the stakeholder absconded, then the loss should be borne by the person who, under the terms of the contract, had a claim to the money at that time”
Lacroix vs. The Queen [1954] 4 DLR 470
●Land Law●
“It seems to me that the owner of land has a limited right in the air space over his property, it is limited by what he can possess or occupy for the use and enjoyment of his land. By putting up buildings or other constructions the owner does not take possession of the air but unites or incorporates something to the surface of his land. This which is annexed or incorporated to his land becomes part and parcel of the property”
●Land Law●
“If the word ‘attachment’ is strictly limited in its meaning to the form of attachment provided by Civil Procedure Code at the time when the Malay Reservation Enactment was passed, then the appointment of a receiver is not attachment within the meaning of that Enactment and the appointment of a receiver is not prohibited”
Karuppiah Chettiar vs. Subramaniam [1971] 2 MLJ 116
●Land Law●
“When the purchaser made the full purchase price payment, the vendor (register-proprietor) only acted as the bare trustee to the property on behalf of the purchaser”
Keith Spicer Ltd vs. Mansel [1920] 1 All ER 462
●Law of Partnership●
“There was no evidence that M and B were carrying “on business in common with a view of profit” within the meaning of the English Partnership Act 1980, which is in pari material with section 3 (1) of the Partnership Act 1961. The evidence merely showed that they were preparing to carry on business as a company as soon as they could.”
Kensington BC vs. Riley [1972] RTR 122
●Consumer Law●
“In deciding whether a description is false or not, the court will consider statements in their context, to determine the effect on the ordinary consumer”
Khoo Hock Leong vs. Lim Ang Kee [1888] 4 Ky 353
●EQUITY●
“In an action for the recovery of land, court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession but also found that the defendant in honest belief that the land was his spent money on the improvements to it. Court applied the maxim ‘he who seeks equity must do equity’ and ordered the defendant to be compensated for his improvements”
Khoo Yoke Wah vs. Lee Choo Yam Holding Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ 414
●Law of Partnership●
“Death of any partners are dissolved the partnership. It mean that the death of any partners are cause the partnership dissolved”
King-Emperor vs. Tha By Aw [1907] 4 BLR 315 (Chief Court, Lower Burma)
●Criminal Law●
“Whenever the words ‘fraud’ or ‘intent to defraud’ or ‘fraudulently’ occur in the definition of crime, two elements at least are essential to the commission of the crime, namely, first, deceit or an intention to deceive, or in some cases mere secrecy and secondly either actual injury or possible injury or an intent to expose some person either to actual injury or to a risk of possible injury by means of that deceit or secrecy”
KM Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra [1962] AIR SC 605
●Criminal Law●
“The question that the court has to consider is whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as the accused was would have reacted to the confession of adultery by his wife in the manner in which the accused did”
Kuldip Singh & Anor vs. Lembaga Letrik Negara & Anor [1983] 1 MLJ 256
●Land Law●
“If the stakeholder absconded, then the loss should be borne by the person who, under the terms of the contract, had a claim to the money at that time”
Lacroix vs. The Queen [1954] 4 DLR 470
●Land Law●
“It seems to me that the owner of land has a limited right in the air space over his property, it is limited by what he can possess or occupy for the use and enjoyment of his land. By putting up buildings or other constructions the owner does not take possession of the air but unites or incorporates something to the surface of his land. This which is annexed or incorporated to his land becomes part and parcel of the property”
CASE SUMMARY: PART 13
Inter-Continental Mining Sdn Bhd vs. Societe des Etains de Bayas Tudjuh [1974] 1 MLJ 145
●Land Law●
“While an agreement to deal in land is insufficient to vest title to or an interest in land, it is necessary still good as a contract. In appropriate cases, the remedy of specific performance or damages in lieu thereof may be obtained in respect of the agreement”
International General Electric Co of New York Ltd vs. Customs and Excise Commissioner [1962] 2 All ER 398
●Land Law●
“The court had jurisdiction in interlocutory proceedings to make a final, and not merely an interim, declaration affecting the rights of a party, but that jurisdiction would only be exercised sparingly and infrequently”
Inwards vs. Baker [1965] 2 QB 29
●Land Law●
“Equity would also arise where the landowner merely encouraged the builder’s belief passively, as where the mortgagee stood silently by while a purchaser, in ignorance of the mortgage built in the land”
Jackson vs. White and Midland Bank [1967] 2 Llyod’s Rep 68
●Law of Partnership●
“The court refused to hold that there had been a partnership agreement since no particular contractual intention can be attributed to the parties. From this case, we can conclude that, the agreement solely cannot be a point in existing of a partnership. There must be a contractual intention or consent by both parties.”
Jai Dev and Hari Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR [1963] SC 612
●Criminal Law●
“It is no doubt true that in striking a decisive below, he must not use more force than appears to be reasonably necessary. But in dealing with the question as to whether more force is used than necessary or than was justified by the prevailing circumstances, it would be inappropriate to adopt tests of detached objectively which would be so natural in Court room, for instance, long after the incident has taken place”
Jarha Chamar vs. Surit Ram [1907] 3 Nag LR 177
●Criminal Law●
“If A runs away with B’s watch, B may chase him until he effects his retreat, but the right of self defence does not end with his escape. If B sees A the next day, the next month, or the next year, wearing the stolen watch, B may forthwith seize A and recover his watch”
Jemadar Sabty vs. Virtashellum [1871] SLR 431
●EQUITY●
“Specific Performance was decreed in line with the maxim that a statute cannot be allowed to be made an instrument of fraud”
John Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd vs. Shaw[1935] 2 KB 113
●Company Law●
Greer LJ held that, some of its powers according to its article of association are exercised by the directors, certain others powers may be reserved to the shareholders in general meeting. Decision to commence proceeding was within the board’s general powers of management provided for in the company’s articles of association and that the members could not override the board’s decision.
Jones vs. Clifford [1876] LR 3 Cg D 779
●Criminal Law●
“Private right of ownership is matter of fact, it may be the result also of matter of law, but if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their relative and respective rights, the result is that the agreement is liable to be set aside as having proceed upon a common mistake”
Joyce vs. DPP [1946] AC 347
●Public International Law●
“The offence of treason may be committed by ant person owing allegiance to the Crown who has done a treasonable act, where that act took place”
●Land Law●
“While an agreement to deal in land is insufficient to vest title to or an interest in land, it is necessary still good as a contract. In appropriate cases, the remedy of specific performance or damages in lieu thereof may be obtained in respect of the agreement”
International General Electric Co of New York Ltd vs. Customs and Excise Commissioner [1962] 2 All ER 398
●Land Law●
“The court had jurisdiction in interlocutory proceedings to make a final, and not merely an interim, declaration affecting the rights of a party, but that jurisdiction would only be exercised sparingly and infrequently”
Inwards vs. Baker [1965] 2 QB 29
●Land Law●
“Equity would also arise where the landowner merely encouraged the builder’s belief passively, as where the mortgagee stood silently by while a purchaser, in ignorance of the mortgage built in the land”
Jackson vs. White and Midland Bank [1967] 2 Llyod’s Rep 68
●Law of Partnership●
“The court refused to hold that there had been a partnership agreement since no particular contractual intention can be attributed to the parties. From this case, we can conclude that, the agreement solely cannot be a point in existing of a partnership. There must be a contractual intention or consent by both parties.”
Jai Dev and Hari Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR [1963] SC 612
●Criminal Law●
“It is no doubt true that in striking a decisive below, he must not use more force than appears to be reasonably necessary. But in dealing with the question as to whether more force is used than necessary or than was justified by the prevailing circumstances, it would be inappropriate to adopt tests of detached objectively which would be so natural in Court room, for instance, long after the incident has taken place”
Jarha Chamar vs. Surit Ram [1907] 3 Nag LR 177
●Criminal Law●
“If A runs away with B’s watch, B may chase him until he effects his retreat, but the right of self defence does not end with his escape. If B sees A the next day, the next month, or the next year, wearing the stolen watch, B may forthwith seize A and recover his watch”
Jemadar Sabty vs. Virtashellum [1871] SLR 431
●EQUITY●
“Specific Performance was decreed in line with the maxim that a statute cannot be allowed to be made an instrument of fraud”
John Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd vs. Shaw[1935] 2 KB 113
●Company Law●
Greer LJ held that, some of its powers according to its article of association are exercised by the directors, certain others powers may be reserved to the shareholders in general meeting. Decision to commence proceeding was within the board’s general powers of management provided for in the company’s articles of association and that the members could not override the board’s decision.
Jones vs. Clifford [1876] LR 3 Cg D 779
●Criminal Law●
“Private right of ownership is matter of fact, it may be the result also of matter of law, but if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their relative and respective rights, the result is that the agreement is liable to be set aside as having proceed upon a common mistake”
Joyce vs. DPP [1946] AC 347
●Public International Law●
“The offence of treason may be committed by ant person owing allegiance to the Crown who has done a treasonable act, where that act took place”
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”
●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”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)