Category Archives: LAW FIRM

Bias, Constitutional law, LAW FIRM, United Kingdom

Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians (“Dr Bonham’s case”) 8 Co Rep 107a; 77 Eng Rep 638 | 1 December 1610

December 1, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 1 DECEMBER 1610, the Chief Justice of the English Court of Common Pleas, Sir Edward Coke, delivered Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians 8 Co Rep 107a; 77 Eng Rep 638.

Dr Bonham had been fined and imprisoned by the Royal College of Physicians for continuing to practise as a Physician in London. He brought a case for false imprisonment.

Coke CJ held that Charter granted by the Parliament to the College of Surgeons was invalid due to bias.

Coke CJ at 118a ruled:

“The censors cannot be judges, ministers, and parties; judges to give
sentence or judgment; ministers to make summons; and parties to have the
moiety of the forfeiture…”

Coke CJ at 118a said:

“It appears in our books that in many cases the common law will control acts of Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an act to be void.”

The case establishes the rule against bias as a constitutional limit on the exercise of parliament’s legislative powers. In short, (1) a person may not be a judge in their own case and (2) an Act of Parliament is invalid if it conflicts with a basic principle of the common law (such as that a person may not be a judge in their own case).

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Evidence, LAW FIRM, Practice and Procedure

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL) | 28 November 1893

November 28, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 28 NOVEMBER 1893, the House of Lords delivered Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL).

A party who cross-examines a witness must, out of fairness, “put it” to the witness any contradiction they suggest arises from their evidence in order to give them an opportunity to explain the contradiction.

Per Lord Herschell at 70-71:

“…it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged and, then, when it is impossible for him to explain…to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit.”

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation

Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 (NSW) | 27 November 2009

November 27, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Twenty Five years ago today, the NSW Parliament enacted the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/eoapa1989n150370

The Act has since been repealed and incorporated in the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1987.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Property Law

Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46 | 25 November 1946

November 25, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 25 NOVEMBER 1946, the High Court of Australia delivered Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46; (1946) 74 CLR 204 (25 November 1946)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1946/46.html

Mr Elliott used of Penfolds’ empty wine bottles to carry other wine.

Dixon J (at 229) said:

“But nothing in the course pursued by the respondent in receiving and filling bottles and returning them could possibly amount to the tort of conversion. The essence of conversion is a dealing with a chattel in a manner repugnant to the immediate right of possession of the person who has the property or special property in the chattel. It may take the form of a disposal of the goods by way of sale, or pledge or other intended transfer of an interest followed by delivery, of the destruction or change of the nature or character of the thing, as for example, pouring water into wine or cutting the seals from a deed, or of an appropriation evidenced by refusal to deliver or other denial of title. But damage to the chattel is not conversion, nor is use, nor is a transfer of possession otherwise than for the purpose of affecting the immediate right to possession, nor is it always conversion to lose the goods beyond hope of recovery. An intent to do that which would deprive “the true owner” of his immediate right to possession or impair it may be said to form the essential ground of the tort.”

The tort of conversion generally concerns a defendant’s intentional dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with or repugnant to the plaintiff’s ownership of the goods: per Latham CJ at 217 – 221, Dixon J (Starke J agreeing) at 228 – 230, McTiernan J at 234 – 235 and Williams J at 239 – 244.

An act repugnant or inconsistent to the terms of the bailment, or consistent only to treat the goods as his or her own, terminates the bailment resulting in possession revesting to the owner who can sue the bailee in trover: per Latham CJ at pp 214 and 217-8, Dixon J at p 227, McTiernan J at p 233 and Williams J at pp 241-2.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Legal Aid

Legal help iPhone app

November 24, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Legal Aid NSW had developed a new iPhone app.

Legal Aid says that the app will allow its users to access a range of useful information including:

The nearest Legal Aid service.

Videos about the law.

Workshops bookings.

Factsheets and other resources.

Legal aid grants.

For more information, visit www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Calling for expressions of interest

November 24, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

At Legal Helpdesk Lawyers, we are always looking for reliable lawyers with suitable expertise to receive our customer referrals.

If you share our values and would like to join our network, please send your expression of interest to Peter O’Grady at peter@legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au. Please include all information and material you would like us to consider, including particulars of your firm, experience, expertise and referees.

It is essential that the lawyers in our network meet high standards of expertise, reliability and peer respect. Our network includes some of the best Solicitors and Barristers in Sydney.

1300 00 2088