Sources of Law Cases

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Grace
  • Created on: 20-05-13 20:26
London Street Tramways 1898
Made the Supreme Court bound to all its previous decisions
1 of 46
Addie v Dumbreck 1929
was overruled in Herrington- first major use of practice statement
2 of 46
Conway v Rimmer 1968
First ever use of the practice statement- was on a technical point of law.
3 of 46
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
a manufacturer of a product is liable to the end consumer of that product- example of binding precedent
4 of 46
Belfour v Belfour 1919
Merit v Merit later distinguished the facts of the case to set a new precedent
5 of 46
Merit v Merit 1971
distinguished material facts in Belfour v Belfour and set a new precedent
6 of 46
Young v Bristol Aeroplane 1944
set out the exceptions for when the CoA can overrule its previous decisions and not follow precedent
7 of 46
Practice Statement 1966
Allows Supreme court to overrule previous decisions and not follow precedent
8 of 46
Herrington 1972
first major use of practice statement
9 of 46
Knuller v DPP 1973
showed supreme courts reluctance to use practice statement
10 of 46
Davis v Johnson 1979
was overruled by Pepper v Hart using Practice statement on use of Hansard for statutory interpretation
11 of 46
Anderton v Ryan 1985
was overruled by Shivpuri using practice statement
12 of 46
Shivpuri 1986
overruled Anderton v Ryan using practice statement. FIRST MAJOR USE OF PRACTICE STATEMENT IN CRIMINAL LAW 20 yrs after p.s introduced
13 of 46
Broome v Cassell 1971
Lord Denning refusing to follow previous decision of s.c. case rookes v barnard
14 of 46
R v Howe 1987
obiter statement made about how judge would not have allowed duress as a defence for attempted murder as well as murder
15 of 46
R v R 1991
lower court decision followed by higher courts making marital **** illegal
16 of 46
R v Ireland and R v Burstow 1997
shows how the divisions of CoA can be persuasive
17 of 46
R v Gotts 1992
Followed Obiter statement in R v Howe and duress was refused as a defence for attempted murder
18 of 46
Pepper v Hart 1993
overruled Davis v Johnson using practice statement to allow for hansard to be used for statutory interpretation
19 of 46
Airdale NHS Trust v Bland 1993
Original precedent set for allowing life support machines to be turned off for people in PVS
20 of 46
R v Brown and others 1994
set precedent not allowing consent to be used as a defence against assault- defendants were sadomasochists and consented to assault but were still found guilty
21 of 46
R v Wilson 1995
similar to Brown but judges distinguished material facts and found that the assault in Wilson was within the context of personal adornment so consent could be used as a defence
22 of 46
Hunter v Canary Warf 1995
Original precedent - blocked TV signal
23 of 46
R v Emmet 1999
similar to Wilson and Brown- followed Brown and said that consent could not be used as a defence for assualt
24 of 46
Heydons Case 1584
set out four rules for the use of the mischief rule
25 of 46
Whitely v Chappell 1868
literal rule- man used a dead mans name for extra vote technically couldnt be found guilty under literal rule as he was not impersonating 'any person entitled to vote' as dead man not entitled to vote
26 of 46
R v Allen 1872
Golden rule narrow approach- on the word 'marry'- can mean to be married to someone and to go through with a wedding/marriage service as man had 2 wives
27 of 46
R v Judge of City of London 1892
stated that literal rule should always be used even if it leads to absurd outcome
28 of 46
Re Sigworth
golden rule wider approach - man killed mother for inheritance and found guilty but technically still entitled to inheritance, court changed meaning of 'issue' so he couldnt receive money
29 of 46
Berriman 1946
literal rule- man was killed by train while oiling train line but without look-out - wife was not entitled to any compensation under literal rule as he was only maintaing or replacing or repairing track :(
30 of 46
Corkery v Carpenter 1951
mischief rule- drunk man on bike on motorway said he couldnt be found guilty as not a 'carriage' court said to prevent mischief of drunken people on highway for purpose of act bike could be a carriage
31 of 46
Smith v Hughes 1960
mischief rule- prostitutes thought they couldnt be found guilty as were not on street but balconys and windows, act created to fill gap of preventing prostitution so they were still found guilty
32 of 46
Fisher v Bell 1960
drafting error- may be why statutory interpretation necessary
33 of 46
Sweet v Parsley 1970
must have presumption of mens rea to be guilty of crime
34 of 46
Davis v Johnson 1979
Lord Denning using hansard but not allowed
35 of 46
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981
mischief rule- allowing nurses and midwives to administer abortions as long as initiated by doctor
36 of 46
Cheesman v DPP 1990
changes of words may be a reason statutory interpretation necessary 'passenger'
37 of 46
R v Registrar General ex. parte Smith 1990
purposive approach- man wnated birth certificate to find out birth mother but was convicted of 2 murders and psycho- suspected he wanted info to harm/kill mum so refused as purpose of act was to reunite families not cause harm and threat to others
38 of 46
Pepper v Hart 1992
practice statement used to overrule Davis v Johnson- hansard can now be used as aid to statutory interpretation- case also set out three rules for when hansad can be used
39 of 46
Jones v Tower Boot Company 1997
Purposive approach- purpose of race relations act was to prevent racism and compensate victims/punish perpetrators so on appal CoA found employer could be liable even though it was individuals being racist
40 of 46
Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling 2000
golden rule wider approach - private taxi driver but parked in public place so likely to attract customers from street, found guilty using golden rule to prevent absurd result
41 of 46
Quintavelle 2003
purposive- court decided that embryos created by cell nuclear replacement could be researched on as purpose if Human fertilisation and embryology act was to allow for embryo research
42 of 46
Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates 1980
re-stated rules for using mischief rule
43 of 46
Adler v George 1964
golden rule- narrow- D thought couldnt be guilty as wasnt 'in the vicinity' he was in the prohibited place, golden rule chose meaning of vicinity to be 'near to or within' so D found guilty
44 of 46
aylsebury mushrooms 1972
procedural ultra vires- when body does not follow procedure set out in enabling act- minister didnt consult mushroom growers as set out in enabling act so delegated legislation declared ultra vires
45 of 46
R v Home Secretary ex parte Fire Brigades Union
substantiative ultra vires- when body goes beyond powers set out in enabling act- home secretary made charges beyond his powers given in CJA 1988
46 of 46

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

was overruled in Herrington- first major use of practice statement

Back

Addie v Dumbreck 1929

Card 3

Front

First ever use of the practice statement- was on a technical point of law.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

a manufacturer of a product is liable to the end consumer of that product- example of binding precedent

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Merit v Merit later distinguished the facts of the case to set a new precedent

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

Smith E

46 slides and nearly as many cases may seem intimidating but the reality is you need this level of detail to secure strong marks. You can use the space available in these slides to add the factual detail for each case. 

N.b. the Merritt case is misspelt. 

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Parliamentary law making resources »