ON 8 JULY 1975, the Commonwealth Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 commenced, abolishing appeals from the High Court of Australia to the Privy Council.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pcfthca1975417/
1300 00 2088
ON 29 JULY 1971, the English Court of appeal delivered Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 Q.B. 60.
http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/biukovic/supplements/anglia.htm
The defendant, Robert Reed, was an American actor best known for his role as Mike Brady in the Brady Bunch television series. In 1968 he contracted with the plaintiff, Anglia Television Ltd, to act in a movie to be filmed in Great Britain. Due to a mix-up with his bookings, the defendant repudiated the contract. The plaintiff sought damages for wasted expenditure incurred before and after the formation of the contract. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was only entitled to wasted expenditure after the contract.
The trial judge awarded the defendant damages for the wasted expenditure incurred both before and after the formation of the contract. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal.
Lord Denning MR held: “If the plaintiff claims the wasted expenditure, he is not limited to the expenditure incurred after the contract was concluded. He can claim also the expenditure incurred before the contract, provided that it was such as would reasonably be in the contemplation of the parties as likely to be wasted if the contract was broken”.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1970, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163; [1971] 1 All ER 686; [1970] EWCA Civ 2.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/97/case.html
ON 10 MAY 1951, the House of Lords delivered Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850; [1951] 1 All ER 1078; [1951] UKHL 2 (10 May 1951).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1951/2.html
Liability does not extend to damage caused by a certain act or omission unless the possibility of causing the damage was reasonably foreseeable at the time.
The damage is not reasonably foreseeable if the likelihood of it happening involves a risk so small that a reasonable person would feel justified in disregarding it.
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1935, the United Kingdom House of Lords delivered Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 (23 May 1935).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html
The case is known for the following passage:
“Through-out the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused. It may prove malice either expressly or by implication. For malice may be implied where death occurs as the result of a voluntary act of the accused which is (i) intentional and (ii) unprovoked. When evidence of death and malice has been given (this is a question for the jury) the accused is entitled to show by evidence or by examination of the circumstances adduced by the Crown that the act on his part which caused death was either unintentional or provoked. If the jury are either satisfied with his explanation or, upon a review of all the evidence, are left in reasonable doubt whether, even if his explanation be not accepted, the act was unintentional or provoked, the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 11 DECEMBER 1931, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/introduction
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 1 JULY 1914, the House of Lords delivered Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79; [1914] UKHL 1 (1 July 1914).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1914/1.html
Liquidated sum clauses are valid and enforceable under contract law; penalty clauses are not. A liquidated sum is a genuine estimate of the losses from a breach; a penalty frightens or deters a party from breach.
A court will construe a clause to be a penalty if:
A court will presume a clause to be a penalty if it is for a single lump sum payable in the occurrence of one or multiple events, some of which may only warrant minimal damages.
A court will presume a clause to be liquidated if the consequences of a breach are hard or impossible to estimate as it is probable that the pre-estimated damage was the true bargain between the parties.
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1903, the phrase “the man on the Clapham omnibus” was first used in a judgment of Collins MR in McQuire v Western Morning News Co Ltd [1903] 2 KB 100 (CA) at 109.
ON THIS DAY in 1894, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Sale of Goods Act 1893. New South Wales enacted its own Act in 1923.
![Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2](https://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/image.jpg?w=528&h=372&crop=1)
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 