CASE SUMMARY: PART 8

Davis vs. Davis [1894] 70 LT 265

●Law of Partnership●

“The fact is the father left his 2 sons his business and three freehold houses in equal shares as tenants in common. They let one of them and employed the rent in enlarging the workshops attached to the two houses. They continued to carry on the business. They each drew out from it a weekly sum, but no accounts were kept. They rent of the third house was divided between them. The Chancery Division in their decision held that, there was a partnership as to business but not as to freehold houses”

De’ Souza vs. Pashupati Nath Sarkar [1968] Cri LJ 405 (Calcutta HC, India)

●Criminal Law●

“Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, provides for punishment of the offence of causing death by a rash or negligent act. Under section 32 of the same act, an illegal omission would constitute an ‘act’ in law and under section 43 of the Code the word ‘illegal’ is applicable to everything which is an offence and which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil action”

Donoghue vs. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

●Law of Torts●

“The rule that you are to love your neighbour become in law, you must not injure your neighbour, and the lawyer’s question ‘who is my neighbour’s’ receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid act or commissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected but my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”

DPP vs. Beard [1920] AC 479

●Criminal Law●

“But drunkenness is one thing and the diseases to which drunkenness leads are different things, and if a man by drunkenness brings on a state of disease which causes such a degree of madness, even for a time, which would relieved him from responsibility if it had been caused in any other way then he would not be criminally responsibility”

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd vs. Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915] AC 847

●Contract Law●

“An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought and the promise thus given for value is enforceable”

E vs. Dorset County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353

●Law of Torts●

“In actions for breach of statutory duty, the breach by itself is not sufficient to give rise to any private law cause of action”

East Timor, Case Concerning (Portugal vs. Australia) [1995] ICJ Rep 89

●Public International Law●

“The court raises a question whether the resolution under discussion could be binding in nature. It was held that, they cannot be a sufficient basis for determining the disputes between parties because such resolution do not usually create binding law”

Eastern and SA Telegraph Co Ltd vs. Cape Town Tramways Corpn [1902] AC 381

●Law of Torts●

“A person could not impose liability on his neighbor just because he used his property in a special or an extraordinary way, whether it is for the business or pleasure”

Ebbow Vale Urban District Council vs. South Wates Traffic Area Licensing Authority [1951] 2 KB 366

●Company Law●

“Under the ordinary rules of law, a parent company and subsidiary company, even a 100 percent subsidiary company, are distant legal entities”

Eccles vs. Bryant and Pollock [1948] Ch 93

●Contract Law●

“This case is one of that long series which no doubt will go on as long as contract take place, in which one party to a transaction, which was intended to produce a contract and was carried on or the usual condition that it was to be subject to contract, is attempting to say that a contract came into existence at a date on which the other party says that negotiations had not yet been completed and that no binding contract had come existence at all”

CASE SUMMARY: PART 7

Cross vs. Cross [1983] 4 FLR 235

●EQUITY●

“He who comes to equity must come with clean hands and any conduct of the plaintiff which would make a grant of specific performance inequitable can prove a bar”

Cruikshank vs. Sutherland [1923] 128 LT 449

●Law of Partnership●

“The mutual rights and duties of partners, whether ascertained by agreement or defined by this Act, may be varied by the consent of all partners and such consent may be express or inferred from a course of dealing”

Cudgen Rutile (No 2) Pty Ltd vs. Chalk [1975] AC 520

●Land Law●

“If certain authorities to prospect issued under the Mining Act of Queensland contained an agreement by the Minister to grant mineral leases, the agreement was not authorized by the statutes which required a series of steps to be taken, decision to be made and discretion to be exercised, before the Minister was empowered to grant a lease”

D & F Estates Ltd & Ors vs. Church Commissioners for England & Ors [1988] 2 All ER 992

●Law of Torts●

“If the defect is discovered before any damage is done, the loss sustained by the owner of the structure, who has to repair or demolish it to avoid a potential source of danger to third parties, would seem to be pure economic”

Daiman Development Sdn. Bhd. vs. Mathew Lui Chin Tek & Ano[1981] 1 MLJ 56

●Law of Partnership●

The court held that, whether there is exist or not a contract between the parties would depend on the phrase use by them at the time they enter into agreement. This shows that, one can always find out whether the relation was intended as contractual relation or not by looking at the statement exchange between the parties in the course of their relation: be it in an oral or written form.

Darvall vs. North Sydney Brick & Title Co Ltd [1988] 6 ACLC 154

●Company Law●

“In my view, it is proper to have regard to the interest of the members of the company, as well as having regard to the interests of the company as a commercial entity”

Datin Siti Hajar vs. Murugasu [1970] 2 MLJ 153

●Land Law●

“In my view, the provision of this section is so precise that it leaves no room for doubt that the acquisition of easements by the common law of prescription, at least as far as the right of way is concerned, is no longer applicable to this country. By the coming into force of the National Land Code the position is made clearer”

Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors vs. Tara Rajaratnam [1983] 2 MLJ 196

●Land Law●

“Fraud may be 'caused by deliberately and dishonestly registering an interest and then transferring the interest even before the ink is dry to another person without the consent of the original registered proprietor”

Daulia Ltd vs. Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] 2 All ER 557 CA

●Contract Law●

“Unequivocally that in a unilateral contract once the offeree has embarked on performance of the condition it was too late for the offeree to revoke his offer”

Daughty [1986]

●Criminal Law●

“The question of provocation should be left to the jury where the accused claimed he was provoked by the crying and restlessness of his 17 day old baby”

CASE SUMMARY: PART 6

Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd vs. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn BhD & Anor [1990] 1 MLJ 356

●Contract Law●

“Thus in our view, it may be stated as a general principle that a contract the making of which is prohibited by statute expressly or by implication, shall be void and unenforceable unless the statute itself saves the contract or there are contrary intentions which can reasonably be read from the language of the statute itself”

Coatsworth vs. Johnson [1886] 54 LT 520

●EQUITY●

“A tenant cannot get specific performances of a contract for a lease if he is already in breach of his obligations”

Corbet vs. Hill [1870] LR 9 Eq 671

●Land Law●

“The owner of the land is ‘the owner of everything up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth’”

Congo vs. Belgium [2002] ICJ Rep 14

●Public International Law●

“The immunity of diplomatic agents remained in place even where the individual was alleged to have committed crimes against international law fro which personal responsibility existed”

“Universal jurisdiction was established as a principle of customary law”

Cornwell vs. Henson [1899] 2 Ch 710

●Land Law●

“It is often stated that the effect of a contract for sale of land is to make the purchaser from that moment in equity owner of the land. I think, however, that this statement is too wide. If by reason of delay or other circumstances the court declines to grant the purchaser specific performance, the purchaser is not treated as being in equity owner of the property”

Costa Rica Railways Company Ltd vs. Forwood [1901] 1 Ch 746

●Law of Partnership●

“As I understand, the rule is rule to protect directors, trustee and others against the fallibility of human nature by providing that, if they do choose to enter into contracts in cases in which they have or may have a conflicting interest, the law will denude them of all profits they may make thereby”

Court vs. Berlin [1897] 77 LT 293

●Law of Partnership●

“In order to carry on the partnership business it was necessary to recover debts due to the firm and for that purpose it was necessary to bring an action. The usual way to bring an action is to employ a solicitor to do so”

Cox vs. Snowball and Kaufman [1929] unreported case

●Law of Partnership●

“Although it is, of course, well known that clients are in fact often guided by the advise of their solicitors as experienced man of affairs, the conclusion that such advise is part of a solicitor’s business as such, or that it is the business of a give form, can only be based on evidence”

Cribb vs. Korn [1911] HCA 9; (1911) 12 CLR 205 (27 April 1911)

●Law of Torts●

“The Workers Compensation Act 1905 provides (sec. 4) that if, in any employment to which the Act applies, any personal injury by accident, arising out of or in the course of the employment, is caused to a worker, his employer shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be liable to pay compensation”

Cribb vs. Korn[1911] 12 CLR 205

●Law of Partnership●

“To be partners they must be shown to have agreed to carry on the business...in common with a view to making profits and afterward of deciding them or of apply them to some agreed subject.”