|
Mechanisms Of The English Common Law
In the English system of common law, judges have devised a number of mechanisms to allow them to cope with precedent decisions. Issues of the common law According to Montesquieu, it is Parliament that has the rightful power to legislate, not the judiciary. The legal fiction is that judges do not make law, they merely "declare it". Thus, common law is declaratory, and this is often retrospective in effect. For example, see '' Shaw v DPP'' and '' R v Knuller''. In the search for justice and fairness, there is a tension between the needs for, on one hand, predictability and stability, and "up-to date law", on the other. There is a hierarchy of courts, and a hierarchy of decisions. All lower courts are bound by the judgments from higher courts; and higher courts are not bound by decisions from lower courts. With one exception, courts of record are bound by their own precedent decisions. The House of Lords used to be bound by its own decisions, but in 1966 it issued a Practice ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Law
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures. Principal elements of English law Although the common law has, historically, been the foundation and prime source of English law, the most authoritative law is statutory legislation, which comprises Acts of Parliament, regulations and by-laws. In the absence of any statutory law, the common law with its principle of '' stare decisis'' forms the residual source of law, based on judicial decisions, custom, and usage. Common law is made by sitting judges who apply both statutory law and established principles which are derived from the reasoning from earlier decisions. Equity is the other historic source of judge-made law. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament. Not being a civil law system, it has no comprehensive codification. However, most of its criminal law has been codified from its common la ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Employment Tribunal
Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in England and Wales and Scotland which have statutory jurisdiction to hear many kinds of disputes between employers and employees. The most common disputes are concerned with unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and employment discrimination. The tribunals are part of the UK tribunals system, administered by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service and regulated and supervised by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. History Employment tribunals were created as industrial tribunals by the Industrial Training Act 1964. Industrial tribunals were judicial bodies consisting of a lawyer, who was the chairman, an individual nominated by an employer association, and another by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) or by a TUC-affiliated union. These independent panels heard and made legally binding rulings in relation to employment law disputes. Under the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998, their name was changed to employ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Anns V Merton London Borough Council
was a decision of the House of Lords. It established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. This case was overruled by '' Murphy v Brentwood DC'' 991 Facts and background In 1962 the local authority of Merton approved building plans for the erection of a block of maisonettes. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete foundations of the block to be 'three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority eing Merton. The notice of approval said that the bylaws of the council required that notice should be given to the council both at the commencement of the work and when the foundations were ready to be covered by the rest of the building work. The council had the power to inspect the foundations and require any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws, but was not under an obligation to do so. The bl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Murphy V Brentwood DC
was a judicial decision of the House of Lords in relation to recovery for pure economic loss in tort. The court overruled the decision ''Anns v Merton London Borough Council'' with respect to duty of care in English law. Facts A builder failed to build proper foundations to a house. The defendant local authority, approving the building for its building regulations, failed to recognise the problem. When the building became dangerously unstable, the claimant, being unable to raise any money for repairs and choosing not to sue anyone at that stage therefore had to sell the house at a considerable loss. He sought to recover his loss from Brentwood District Council, but this action failed as the loss, the deflated value he obtained for the house, was classed as a pure economic loss. Judgment The House of Lords overruled ''Anns'' and held that the council was not liable in the absence of physical injury. Also, the case of ''Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC'' was disapproved. This judgm ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Candler V Crane, Christmas & Co
''Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co'' 9512 KB 164 is an English tort law case on negligent misstatement. In the case, Denning LJ delivered a dissenting judgment, arguing that a duty of care arose when making negligent statements. His dissenting judgment was later upheld by the House of Lords in '' Hedley Byrne v Heller'' 1963. Facts Donald Ogilvie was the director of a company called Trevaunance Hydraulic Tin Mines Ltd, which mined tin in Cornwall. He needed more capital, so he placed an advertisement in ''The Times'' on 8 July 1946 which read, "£10,000. Established Tin Mine (low capitalisation) in Cornwall seeks further capital. Install additional milling plant. Directorship and active participation open to suitable applicant - Apply" Candler responded, saying he was interested in investing £2000, provided he was shown the company's accounts. Ogilvie instructed Crane, Christmas & Co, a firm of auditors, to prepare the company’s accounts and balance sheet. The draft accoun ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Junior Books V Veitchi
''Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd'' 9831 AC 520 was a House of Lords judgment on whether a duty of care in delict exists between a contractor or sub-contractor and an employer. This Scottish case initially caused some excitement amongst English academic lawyers who thought it heralded the fusion of contract and tort into a single "law of obligations". Although textbooks were written with such a title, the idea did not generally catch on, and ''Junior Books'' has since become "a very distinguished case". Facts Veitchi was a specialist flooring company which was nominated as a subcontractor to lay flooring at Junior Books' factory. The floor proved defective but as there was a contract only between Junior Books and the main contractor, there was no contractual relationship whereby Junior Books could sue Veitchi, the subcontractor. Accordingly, Junior Books was obliged to bring an action in delict, arguing that Veitchi owed Junior Books a non-contractual duty of care. It was ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Polemis
''In Re'' ''Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd'' (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law courts. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by the landmark decisions of ''Donoghue v Stevenson'' and '' The Wagon Mound (No 1)''. Facts The defendant stevedore's employees were loading cargo into a ship. An employee negligently caused a plank to fall into the ship's hold. The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that resulted in the ship becoming a total loss. The matter was taken to arbitration. Judgment The arbitrator found that the defendant's negligence caused the plank to fal ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, other than for the United Kingdom itself.P. A. Howell, ''The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure, and Development'', Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979 Formally a statutory committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, the Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors; they are predominantly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Although it is often simply referred to as the 'Privy Council', the Judicial Committee is only one cons ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V Morts Dock And Engineering Co Ltd
''Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd'',. commonly known as ''Wagon Mound (No. 1)'', is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. ''The Wagon Mound (No 1)'' should not be confused with the successor case of the ''Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship'' or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care.. Facts Overseas Tankship had a ship, the ''Wagon Mound'', docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Stevenson
was a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to ''Donoghue v Stevenson'', liability for personal injury i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lord Atkin
James Richard Atkin, Baron Atkin, (28 November 1867 – 25 June 1944), commonly known as Dick Atkin, was an Australian-born British judge, who served as a lord of appeal in ordinary from 1928 until his death in 1944. He is especially remembered as the judge giving the leading judgement in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932, in which he established the modern law of negligence in the UK, and indirectly in most of the common law world. Early life and practice Atkin was the son of Robert Travers Atkin (1841–1872) and his wife, Mary Elizabeth ''née'' Ruck (1842–1920). Robert was from Kilgarriff, County Cork, Mary's father from Newington, Kent, and her mother from Merioneth, Wales. The couple married in 1864 and soon emigrated to Australia intending to take up sheep farming. However, little more than a year into their enterprise Robert was badly injured in a fall from a horse and the couple moved to Brisbane where Robert became a journalist and politician. He always t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Eugene Wambaugh
Eugene Wambaugh (February 29, 1856 – August 6, 1940) was an American legal scholar. He was born on a farm near Brookville, Ohio to Rev. A. B. Wambaugh and Sarah Wells Wambaugh. He was educated at Harvard University, Harvard (A.B., 1876; LL.B., 1880). Admitted to the Ohio Bar association, bar in 1880, he practiced law in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cincinnati until 1889. He was professor of law at the University of Iowa College of Law, State University of Iowa College of Law from 1889 to 92 and thenceforth at Harvard. From 1906 to 1913, he was a member of the ''American Political Science Review'', and from 1908 to 1912 served as special attorney of the United States Bureau of Corporations. Several universities gave him the honorary degree of LL.D. His publications include: * ''The Study of Cases'' (1892; second edition, 1894) * ''Cases for Analysis'' (1894) * ''A Selection of Cases on Agency'' (1896) * ''Thomas Littleton (judge), Littleton's Tenures'' (1903) * ''A Selecti ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
