Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove Ads
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Precedent cases 2014

TermDefinition
Donoghue v Stevenson House of Lords. Decomposing snail in ginger beer, caused food poisoning. ORIGINAL PRECEDENT. Duty of care owed by the manufacturer to consumers for products they sell.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Court of Appeal Offer of £100 to people who bought smoke ball but still caught flu, or not cured existing flu. Advert was a unilateral offer of binding contract, and capable of acceptance. The company had to pay £100 each to eligible claimants!
Central London Properties v High Trees House High Court Landlord & Tenant agreed rent reduction during WWII. Ratio: rent only reduced during the war - Obiter: principle of ESTOPPEL was created, where you cannot go back on a promise
R v Howe & R v Gotts House of Lords (criminal case) Howe: tried & failed to use duress as defence to murder Gotts: 16yr old stabbed mother after threats from dad Howe: obiter statement that duress not a defence for attempted murder became ratio and binding rule
R v R (1991) House of Lords (criminal case) D convicted with the attempted rape of his wife. ORIGINAL PRECEDENT (as it was a new idea in 1991) and reflects change in moral values. Also PERSUASIVE precedent (reasoning from courts lower down)
Re A (conjoined twins) (2000) Court of Appeal. Mary was a "parasite" sharing a liver with Jodie. Doctors were granted court order. Held: shows persuasive precedent (from Criminal to Civil Division) used defence called NECESSITY - also persuasive precedent (Perka decision from Canada
A-G for Jersey v Holley (2005) Privy Council, England. D murdered wife, was alcoholic and depressed - should these characteristics count for the "reasonable man" and standard of self control? Held: reasonable man CANNOT be depressed/alcoholic
R v Brown distinguishing R v Wilson House of Lords (criminal case 3/2 majority)Brown sadomasichists inflicted ABH injuries consensually. Held: not consent to injuries. Reasons given for liability and not recognising consent: public policy, fear of corruption and potential for serious harm.
R v Shivpuri overruling Anderton v Ryan House of Lords. D had SNUFF admitted thought it was heroin. Practice Statement used (to overrule Anderton v Ryan). Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states you can be criminally liable for an impossible crime if you complete the mens rea
Davis v Johnson House of Lords. Couple were cohabitees. HOL reversed decision by COA (Lord Denning)where Hansard was used to give the woman protection under the 1976 Act. On appeal she received NO protection as she was not married
The Practice Statement 1966 per Lord Gardiner They propose, therefore, to modify their present practice and, while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so.... especial need for certainty as to the criminal law.
London Street Tramways v London County Council (1898) House of Lords. Held: the House of Lords binds itself (still starting point today!). The HOL held that certainty in the law was more important than the possibility of individual hardship being caused through having to follow a past decision
Herrington v British Railways Board (1972) House of Lords. Boy burned on an electric rail. First major use of the Practice Statement 1966: Occupier owed trespasser a common duty of care, principle of "ordinary humanity"
Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services (1972) House of Lords. Workers injured. Held: the House of Lords were RELUCTANT TO USE THE PRACTICE STATEMENT. Quashed the Commissioners' decision but declined to overrule the decision in Dowling, even though 4/7 members of the House thought it was wrong.
Pepper v Hart (1993)overruling Davis v Johnson House of Lords. Teacher claimed tax benefits for children schooling. Allowing the use of Hansard as an extrinsic aid to the interpretation of statutes (subject to certain conditions - where meaning of a law is AMBIGUOUS).
R v Shivpuri overruling Anderton v Ryan House of Lords. D had SNUFF admitted thought it was heroin. Practice Statement used (to overrule Anderton v Ryan). Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states you can be criminally liable for an impossible crime if you complete the mens rea
R v R and G House of Lords (criminal case) Boys caused £1m of damage. The defendants' convictions were quashed. The House of Lords overruled MPC v Caldwell [1982] using the PRACTICE STATEMENT. Recklessness test is now SUBJECTIVE
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944) COA EXCEPTIONS (1) two conflicting past decisions (2) conflict with HOL/SC (3) the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if it is satisfied that the decision was given per incuriam
Starmark Enterprises v CPL Enterprises (2001) COA was faced with TWO PAST DECISIONS THAT CONFLICTED WITH EACH OTHER. This is an exception under the Young case. The Court decided that the later decision was wrong, and followed the earlier decision instead. Time was of the essence
Williams v Fawcett (1986) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Defendant was committal to prison for breach of a non-molestation court order. The paperwork failed to specify the breaches or to grant an adjournment. These were material irregularities PER INCURIAM conviction quashed
R v Gould (1968) D remarried honestly (bigamy). More flexibility with Young exceptions in criminal cases, due to liberty being at stake, and only when LAW MISAPPLIED OR MISUNDERSTOOD. Not guilty
Created by: Rich Whitaker