The house of lords and the law of contract

1968 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11
Author(s):  
A.G. Guest
Keyword(s):  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

The House of Lords on the Law of Trespass to Realty and Children as Trespassers

1910 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 491
Author(s):  
F. M. B. ◽  
Thomas Beven
Keyword(s):  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

Consent after the House of Lords: Taking and leading astray the Law of Theft

Legal Studies ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-322
Author(s):  
Mitchell C. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Specific Definition

The objectives of the Criminal Law Revision Committee when drafting the radical reforms proposed by the 1966 Theft Bill were described by a contemporary commentator2 as being: ‘. . . to do away with the more embarrassing and restrictive technicalities of the existing law . . .’In the same place it was observed that the Committee faced a choice between creating a specific definition of the various theft offences and their elements, or one whose generality would allow it to evolve to meet the challenges presented by ever more complex and sophisticated dishonest dealing.

scholarly journals Culpability, Kingston and the Law Commission

2010 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 434-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cath Crosby
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Character Theory ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Do So

This article considers the basis upon which a person should be held to be criminally liable, and to do so, it is necessary to examine the leading theories of character and choice that underpin the State holding a person to be culpable of a criminal offence, i.e. the link between culpability and fault. The case of R v Kingston1 is used to examine the application of these leading theories and it is observed that choice theorists would not excuse such a defendant from criminal liability even though his capacity to make a choice to refrain from law breaking was made extremely difficult by external factors beyond his control. Only character theory could possibly offer exculpation in such circumstances on the basis that the defendant acted ‘out of character’ and his deed did not deserve the full censure and punishment of the criminal law. The Court of Appeal in R v Kingston would have been prepared to excuse, but the House of Lords, and most recently the Law Commission have adopted a pragmatic approach to the involuntarily intoxicated offender. This case serves as a reminder that while justice is the aim of the criminal justice system, it is not an absolute standard.

Criminal Responsibility of the Insane

1894 ◽  
Vol 40 (171) ◽  
pp. 609-621
Author(s):  
Oscar Woods
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

Many of those now present will probably agree with me that the law of criminal responsibility, as at present laid prisoners is not the same in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The existing law is ruled by the answers of the judges to certain questions put to them by the House of Lords in reference to the case of the “Queen v. McNaghten,” tried in 1843.

Exclusive possession or the intention of the parties? The relation of landlord and tenant in Northern Ireland

2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-223
Author(s):  
Mark Hayward
Keyword(s):  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

The seminal House of Lords judgment in Street v Mountford established that the test for distinguishing between a lease and a licence is whether the occupant has been granted exclusive possession of the premises. The test is objective: the relation of landlord and tenant exists where exclusive possession has been granted, regardless of the intention of the parties. However, this stands at odds with the law in both parts of Ireland, where s 3 of Deasy's Act states that the relation of landlord and tenant 'shall be deemed to be founded on the . . . contract of the parties'. This article analyses the historical background that led to Deasy's Act, surveys contemporary case law in both parts of Ireland on leases vs licences and argues that the law in this area in Northern Ireland differs from that in England and Wales.

opinion. It surely makes more sense to construe the words ‘so liable’ in s2(1) as merely referring to the general existence of damages under s2(1), which had formerly only existed in respect of fraudulent misrepresentation rather than as importing all the rules of fraud into what is, at root, a negligence action. In Smith New Court Ltd v Citibank NA, Lord Steyn at the very least raised a critical eyebrow. ‘The question is whether the rather loose wording of [s 2(1)] compels the court to treat a person who was morally innocent as if he was guilty of fraud when it comes to the measure of damages. There has been trenchant academic criticism of the Royscott case: see Richard Hooley ... (1991) 107 LQR 547. Since this point does not directly arise in the present case, I express no concluded view on the correctness of the decision in Royscott’. Of course, fact that fraud rules on damages and remoteness of loss apply to an action under s2(1) does not mean that all the rules applicable to actions for deceit are also applicable. For example, there may be different rules for the purposes of limitation of actions. Much of the law in relation to damages for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations have been reviewed recently by the House of Lords in Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NA (originally Scrimgeour Vickers Ltd and Another). The case concerned the losses caused by the dramatic fall in

1995 ◽  
pp. 717-717
Keyword(s):  
House Of Lords ◽  
General Existence ◽  
The Law ◽  
Limitation Of Actions ◽  
Dramatic Fall ◽  
As If

Surprisingly, there are no official authoritative series of law reports in England to equate with the Queen’s Printers copy of an Act of Parliament. The Stationery Office is responsible for publishing revenue, immigration and social security law cases. However, traditionally, law reports remain in the hands of private publishers. Today, there are numerous, often competitive, private publishers. Although there are no official series of law reports, the courts do respect some reports more than others. A long established, conventional rule is that a law report, if it is to be accepted by the relevant court as an authority, must be prepared by and published under the name of a fully qualified barrister. The greater accuracy of modern reporting, and the vetting by judges, necessitates longer delays before the cases are published. Also, the Law Reports only cover 7% of the cases in the higher courts in any given year. Interesting issues are: (a) who selects which cases to report? (b) how are they selected? Editors select the cases for inclusion in the series of law reports. These are highly trained lawyers, well acquainted with precedent and the likely importance of cases. During the past 150 years publishers of law reports have been generalists or specialists. Some law reports are annotated, particularly for the use of practitioners, others left without annotations, introductions, etc. In addition to reported cases, the Supreme Court Library contains thousands of files of unreported cases. In 1940, the Lord Chancellor’s Department prepared a report: The Report of the Law Reporting Committee. The Committee considered that, after editors had made their choices, ‘What remains is less likely to be a treasure house than a rubbish heap in which a jewel will rarely, if ever, be discovered’ (p 20). (Note the poetic language that forcefully carries the point.) Of course, today, there is a vast range of electronic retrieval systems for accessing details of thousands of unreported cases. This has caused its own problems and there was a legitimate concern that courts would be inundated with cases that did not really contain any new law, but which had been retrieved from electronic sources. In the case of Roberts Petroleum Ltd v Bernard Kenny Ltd [1983] 2 AC 192, the House of Lords took the step of forbidding the citation of unreported cases of the civil division of the Court of Appeal without special leave. The rule remains, however, that to be an accepted version that can be quoted in court the report must have been prepared and published by a barrister. When law students read law reports they must ask: (a) is this report the most authoritative version available? (b) are there fuller versions? (c) if unreported, does this case add to the law? Figure 4.2, below, sets out the types of reports available for the law student to consult.

2012 ◽  
pp. 78-79
Keyword(s):  
Law Students ◽  
Retrieval Systems ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legitimate Concern ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Student ◽  
Law Reports ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Vast Range
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document