JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

Created by: stefy1234
Created on: 21-12-17 13:09

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON 1932

DECOMPOSED SNAIL IN GINGER BEER BOTTLE ESTABLISHED THE MODERN LAW OF NEGLIGENCE AND ESTABLISHED THE NEIGHBOUR TEST THIS SET A BINDING PRECEDENT WHICH WAS FOLLOWED IN GRANT V AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS

1 of 6

YOUNG V BRITISH AEROPLANE 1944

ESTABLISHED EXCEPTIONS FOR CA TO DEPART FROM PRECEDENT 1. WHERE PREVIOUS DECISION WAS MADE PER INCURIAM 2. WHERE ITS OWN PREVIOUS DECISIONS CONFLICT 3. WHERE PREVIOUS DECISIONS HAD BEEN IMPLICITLY OVERRULED BY HOUSE OF LORDS

2 of 6

BRB V HERRINGTON 1972

A SIX-YEAR OLD BOY WAS ELECTROCUTED AND SUFFERED SEVERE BURNS WHEN HE WONDERED FROM A PLAY PARK ONTO A LIVE RAILWAY LINE OVERRULED ADDIE V DUMBRECK (NO DUTY OF CARE WAS OWED TO TRESPASSERS) HELD THAT THE DEFENDANT RAILWAY COMPANY DID OWE A DUTY OF C

3 of 6

LONDON TRAMWAYS V LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL 1898

ESTABLISHED THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS BOUND BY ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS CERTAINTY IN LAW OVERRULED INDIVIDUAL HARDSHIP

4 of 6

R V CUNNINGHAM 1982

THE DEFENDANT ATTACKED THE VICTIM IN A PUB WRONGLY BELIEVING THAT THE VICTIM HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIS FIANCE. THE DEFENDANT APPEALED CONTENDING THAT THE LAW OF MURDER SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THOSE WHO INTENT TO KILL AND THUS THE DECISION IN R V VI

5 of 6

HM ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR JERSEY V HOLLEY 2005

PRIVY COUNCIL DECLARED THAT THEY WERE ANNOUNCING THE LAW APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO JERSEY BUT ALSO TO ENGLAND AND WALES. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SOUGHT LEAVE TO APPEAL ARGUING THE DECISION IN SMITH (MORGAN) WAS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT APPLY IN JERSEY

6 of 6

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

YOUNG V BRITISH AEROPLANE 1944

Back

Card 3

Front

BRB V HERRINGTON 1972

Back

Card 4

Front

LONDON TRAMWAYS V LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL 1898

Back

Card 5

Front

R V CUNNINGHAM 1982

Back

View more cards

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »

See all FOUNDATIONS OF LAW resources »

Get Revising

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT