Cases for Judicial Precedent OCR

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Holly
  • Created on: 22-05-13 17:46
Wagon Mound
A vessel leaked oil, cotton debris set on fire. Destruction of boats and wharf. Privvy Council
1 of 19
Holley
Defendant hacked deceased to death with an axe. Privy Council ruled that in defence a defendant should be judged by the standard of a person having ordinary powers of self control.
2 of 19
R v R
Creation of Marital **** as an offence. HoL persuaded by CoA
3 of 19
R v Howe/R v Gotts
(Howe) Duress cannot be used as a defence for murder (Gotts) Duress cannot be used as a defence for attempted murder. Persuaded by obiter dicta.
4 of 19
London Street Tramways v London County Council
House of Lords held that certainty was more important than individual hardship.
5 of 19
DPP v Smith
A person could be guilty of murder if a reasonable person would have forseen that death. Changed by an Act of Parliment.
6 of 19
Herrington v British Railway
HoL used the practice statement to overrule Addie v Dumbreck and involved the law on duty of care owed to a child trespasser. They said social and physical conditions had changed.
7 of 19
Conway v Rimmer
1st case the Practice Statement was used, on a technical point on the discovery of documents in 1968
8 of 19
Jones v Secretary of state for social services
4/7 judges regarded the earlier case as wrong, but they didn't use the practice statement.
9 of 19
Miliangos
Appeal came to CoA who should have followed judgement but went to HoL. HoL used Practice Statement to overrule precedent, but made it clear that CoA should follow precedent. Over whether damages could be paid in Sterling.
10 of 19
Pepper v Hart
Ban on Hansard overruled with the Practice Statement
11 of 19
R v Shivpuri
1st Criminal case in 1986
12 of 19
R v R & G
Overruled Cadwell and allowed a subjective test for recklessness, the Practice Statement was used
13 of 19
Re: Medicaments
CoA refused to follow R v Gough (HoL) because it was not in line with ECHR.
14 of 19
Young v Bristol Areoplane
Where there are conflicting decisions in past CoA cases, the court can choose which it will follow, CoA must follow the Supreme Court decision. Where the decision was made perincurium the CoA can avoid precedent
15 of 19
Rickards v Rickards
CoA refused to follow a case because it was made 'per incurium'
16 of 19
R v Taylor
Decision that Y v B exceptions can be used in criminal division
17 of 19
Balfour v Balfour/ Merritt v Merritt
Both cases involve a wife making a claim against her husband for breach of contract. In B, no intention to create legal relations = failed. M, agreement after seperation and in writing = success
18 of 19
Donoghue v Stevenson
Made new law. Manufacturer owes a duty of care to ultimate consumer, created the neighbour test.
19 of 19

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Defendant hacked deceased to death with an axe. Privy Council ruled that in defence a defendant should be judged by the standard of a person having ordinary powers of self control.

Back

Holley

Card 3

Front

Creation of Marital **** as an offence. HoL persuaded by CoA

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

(Howe) Duress cannot be used as a defence for murder (Gotts) Duress cannot be used as a defence for attempted murder. Persuaded by obiter dicta.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

House of Lords held that certainty was more important than individual hardship.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Judicial precedent resources »