|
List Of Notable United Kingdom House Of Lords Cases
This page lists legal decisions of the House of Lords. Until 30 September 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appellate court for the United Kingdom. Cases were determined not by the House of Lords itself, but by its Judicial Committee, consisting of up to nine legally qualified peers, generally referred to as "Law Lords". On 1 October 2009 its functions were transferred to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. For a complete list of all legal cases heard by the House of Lords, see List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. See also * List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases * List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases * List of Supreme Court of Judicature cases External links House of Lords cases since 1996 {{DEFAULTSORT:Landmark United Kingdom House of Lords cases United Kingdom The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in Europe, off the north-wes ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
House Of Lords
The House of Lords, also known as the House of Peers, is the Bicameralism, upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Membership is by Life peer, appointment, Hereditary peer, heredity or Lords Spiritual, official function. Like the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. The House of Lords scrutinises Bill (law), bills that have been approved by the House of Commons. It regularly reviews and amends bills from the Commons. While it is unable to prevent bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions. In this capacity, the House of Lords acts as a check on the more powerful House of Commons that is independent of the electoral process. While members of the Lords may also take on roles as government ministers, high-ranking officials such as cabinet ministers are usually drawn from the Commons. The House of Lo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Steel V Houghton (1788)
''Steel v Houghton'' (1788) 1 H Bl 51; 126 ER 32 is a landmark judgment in English law by the House of Lords that is considered to mark the modern legal understanding of private property rights. Ostensibly the matter found that no person has a right at common law to glean the harvest of a private field, but the judgment has been taken to be a more general precedent for private land matters. Background In early modern England gleaning was an important source of income for labouring families, at a time when many parishes were affected by enclosure and the wholesale transformation of property rights. Over the harvests of 1785-1787, conflict had been escalating between land owners and gleaners in the village of Timworth, Suffolk. In 1787, Mary Houghton gleaned on the farm of a wealthy land owner, James Steel, who sued for trespass. Verdict The court sided with landlords and found against the gleaners' claims, rejecting arguments from Mosaic Law (A precedent for gleaning is to be fo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Wakelin V London & South Western Railway Co
''Wakelin v London and South Western Railway Co.'' (1886) was a case heard by the House of Lords regarding Personal Injury and Negligence. The case was between Wakelin and the London and South Western Railway Co. Lord Watson concluded that a defendant's liability must be in the first place where "some negligent act or omission on the part of the company or their servants which materially contributed to the injury or death complained of. Mere allegation or proof that the company were guilty of negligence is altogether irrelevant; they might be guilty of many negligent acts or omissions, which might possibly have occasioned injury to somebody, but had no connection whatever with the injury for which redress is sought, and therefore the plaintiff must allege and prove, not merely that they were negligent, but that their negligence caused or materially contributed to the injury." Which simply put is to say that it must be proven that the defendant's negligence directly caused said inj ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Consideration
Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts (contracts by deed). The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions. The court in ''Currie v Misa'' declared consideration to be a “Right, Interest, Profit, Benefit, or Forbearance, Detriment, Loss, Responsibility”. Thus, consideration is a promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee; and typically the thing of value is goods, money, or an act. Forbearance to act, such as an adult promising to refrain from smoking, is enforceable if one is thereby surrendering a legal right. Consideration may be thought of as the concept of value offered and accepted by people or organisations entering into contracts. Anything of value promised by one party to the other when making a contract can be treated as "consideration": for example, if A contracts to buy a car from B for $5,000, A's c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Foakes V Beer
is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. It is a leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration. It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by part performance, affirming ''Pinnel's Case'' (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lesser sum on the day .e., on or after the due date of a money debtcannot be any satisfaction of the whole." Facts The appellant, Dr John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia Beer, a sum of £2,090 19s after a court judgment. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of £500 (£52,615.38 in 2012 adjusted for inflation) and pay £150 twice yearly until the whole amount was paid back. Foakes was in financial difficulty and, with the help of his solicitor, drew up an agreement ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Promissory Estoppel
A promise is a commitment by someone to do or not do something. As a noun ''promise'' means a declaration assuring that one will or will not do something. As a verb it means to commit oneself by a promise to do or give. It can also mean a capacity for good, similar to a value that is to be realized in the near future. In the law of contract, an exchange of promises is usually held to be legally enforceable, according to the Latin maxim ''pacta sunt servanda''. Types There are many types of promises. There are solemn promises, such as marriage vows or military oaths and are conventions. There are legal contracts, enforceable by law. Or, there are fairy tale promises, regrettable and problematic at the time, they must be honored. And lastly, there are election promises, commitments that most people realize will later be shaped by politics and compromise. Both an oath and an affirmation can be a promise. One special kind of promise is the vow. A notable type of promise is an el ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court Of Appeal Of England And Wales
The Court of Appeal (formally "His Majesty's Court of Appeal in England", commonly cited as "CA", "EWCA" or "CoA") is the highest court within the Courts of England and Wales#Senior Courts of England and Wales, Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal was created in 1875, and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal. The court has two divisions, Criminal and Civil, led by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England respectively. Criminal appeals are heard in the Criminal Division, and civil appeals in the Civil Division. The Criminal Division hears appeals from the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals from the County Court (England and Wales), County Court, High Court of Justice and Family Court (England and Wales ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hughes V Metropolitan Railway Co
''Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co'' 877is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the case of ''Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd'' in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. Facts Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Notice was given on 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until 22 April to finish the repairs. On 28 November, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing that Hughes purchase the tenant's leasehold interest. Negotiations began but later broke down, at which point the landlord demanded the repair of the building from 6 months since the original notice. The tenant claimed he should have had 6 months from the time the n ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tort
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictions derive their tort law from cus ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rylands V Fletcher
''Rylands v Fletcher'' (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.Bohlen (1911) 300 Rylands employs contractors to build a reservoir. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (). Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in ''Rylan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hyde V Hyde
''Hyde v Hyde'' is a landmark case of the English Court of Probate and Divorce. The case was heard 20 March 1866 before Lord Penzance, and established the common law definition of marriage. Facts of the case John Hyde, an English Mormon who had been ordained to the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), brought an action of divorce against his wife, Lavinia, for adultery. He had left the LDS Church and began to write and publish anti-Mormon material, a move that caused him to be excommunicated from the LDS Church. His wife left him, and subsequently remarried in Utah Territory, which was the basis for his suit for divorce. The court denied his petition on the grounds that the relationship he had entered into did not constitute a marriage under the law of England. Judgement Citing '' Warrender v. Warrender'', Lord Penzance found that institutions in foreign countries (including marriage) cannot be considered as valid under English law, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dimes V Grand Junction Canal
''Dimes v Grand Junction Canal'' (1852) was a case heard by the House of Lords. The case addresses the point that "Judges must not appear to be biased". Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a landowner. Lord Cottenham was later discovered to have had shares in said company. The verdict stated that although there was no suggestion that the Lord Chancellor had in fact been influenced by his interest in the company, no case should be decided by a judge with a financial interest In finance and economics, interest is payment from a borrower or deposit-taking financial institution to a lender or depositor of an amount above repayment of the principal sum (that is, the amount borrowed), at a particular rate. It is distinct ... in the outcome. It was held that the Lord Chancellor was disqualified from sitting as a judge in the case because he had an interest in the action. References ''Dimes v Grand Junction Canal'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> Promissory Estoppel")
