Introduction to Common Law – Case Law Summary
Inhoud
Weeks 1 + 2: origin and nature of English law........................................................................................3
Fisher v Bell [1961]..................................................................................................................................3
National Society v Scottish National Society [1915].................................................................................3
R. v Allen [1972].......................................................................................................................................3
London Street Tramways v London County Council [1849].....................................................................3
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co [1944].......................................................................................................4
Swift v Tyson [1842].................................................................................................................................4
Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins [1938].........................................................................................................4
Week 3: constitutional law........................................................................................................................5
R. v Jordan [1967]....................................................................................................................................5
Factortame I & II [1990 & 1991], or R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport....................5
Ellen Street Estates Ltd. v The Minister of Health [1934]........................................................................5
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002]..............................................................................................6
Bulmer v Bollinger [1974]........................................................................................................................6
Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope [1842].................................................................................6
A-G v Fulham Corporation [1921]............................................................................................................7
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852]......................................................................................................7
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948].........................................7
Weeks 4 + 5: criminal law.........................................................................................................................8
Hill v Baxter [1958]..................................................................................................................................8
R. v Curley [1909].....................................................................................................................................8
R. v Instan [1893].....................................................................................................................................8
R. v Pittwood [1902]................................................................................................................................9
R. v Miller [1983].....................................................................................................................................9
R. v Moloney [1985].................................................................................................................................9
R. v Cunningham [1957]...........................................................................................................................9
R. v Caldwell [1981]...............................................................................................................................10
R. v Adomako [1994]..............................................................................................................................10
,R. v Latimer [1886].................................................................................................................................10
R. v Pembliton [1874]............................................................................................................................11
Alphacell v Woodward [1972]...............................................................................................................11
R. v Thornton [1991]..............................................................................................................................11
DPP v Newbury [1977]...........................................................................................................................11
R. v Turner [1971]..................................................................................................................................12
R. v M’naghten [1843]...........................................................................................................................12
R. v Gotts [1992]....................................................................................................................................12
R. v Dudley and Stephens [1884]...........................................................................................................13
R. v Clegg [1995]....................................................................................................................................13
, Weeks 1 + 2: origin and nature of English law
Fisher v Bell [1961]
Literal rule of interpretation
Facts:
A shopkeeper put a flick-knife in his window with a price tag on it. The Restriction of Offensive
Weapons Act 1959 made it a criminal offence to ‘offer’ such flick-knives for sale. Did the shopkeeper
‘offer’ the flick-knife for sale contrary to the statute?
Ratio decidendi:
No, the knife was not offered for sale, since the word ‘offer’ was not defined in the Restriction of
Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It therefore had to be given the meaning attributed to it in the ordinary law
of contract. Thus, the Court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation.
National Society v Scottish National Society [1915]
Literal rule of interpretation
Facts:
After his death, a Scotsman left his money to a beneficiary which he called the National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children, meaning the Scottish National Society.
Ratio decidendi:
The Court applied the literal rule and defined ‘the National Society’ as the British National Society.
R. v Allen [1972]
Golden rule of interpretation
Facts:
The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy (marrying twice). The statute states: ‘whosoever
being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of
an offence’. The defendant tried to argue that under a literal interpretation of the statute, it would be
impossible to commit the offence, since a second marriage will not be recognized in civil law and is
therefore invalid and technically not a marriage. This would make it possible to marry twice. However,
this was an absurd result.
Ratio decidendi:
The Court applied the golden rule and held that the word ‘marry’ in the statute should be interpreted as ‘to
go through a marriage ceremony’.
London Street Tramways v London County Council [1849]
Ratio decidendi:
The House of Lords (now: Supreme Court) is bound by its own previous decisions.
Except where the previous decision had been made per incuriam (through lack of care): when an important
case or statute was not brought to the attention of the Court when the previous decision was made.
The doctrine of binding precedent was later abolished by the House of Lords through the Announcement of 16-
7-1966.
Inhoud
Weeks 1 + 2: origin and nature of English law........................................................................................3
Fisher v Bell [1961]..................................................................................................................................3
National Society v Scottish National Society [1915].................................................................................3
R. v Allen [1972].......................................................................................................................................3
London Street Tramways v London County Council [1849].....................................................................3
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co [1944].......................................................................................................4
Swift v Tyson [1842].................................................................................................................................4
Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins [1938].........................................................................................................4
Week 3: constitutional law........................................................................................................................5
R. v Jordan [1967]....................................................................................................................................5
Factortame I & II [1990 & 1991], or R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport....................5
Ellen Street Estates Ltd. v The Minister of Health [1934]........................................................................5
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002]..............................................................................................6
Bulmer v Bollinger [1974]........................................................................................................................6
Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope [1842].................................................................................6
A-G v Fulham Corporation [1921]............................................................................................................7
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852]......................................................................................................7
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948].........................................7
Weeks 4 + 5: criminal law.........................................................................................................................8
Hill v Baxter [1958]..................................................................................................................................8
R. v Curley [1909].....................................................................................................................................8
R. v Instan [1893].....................................................................................................................................8
R. v Pittwood [1902]................................................................................................................................9
R. v Miller [1983].....................................................................................................................................9
R. v Moloney [1985].................................................................................................................................9
R. v Cunningham [1957]...........................................................................................................................9
R. v Caldwell [1981]...............................................................................................................................10
R. v Adomako [1994]..............................................................................................................................10
,R. v Latimer [1886].................................................................................................................................10
R. v Pembliton [1874]............................................................................................................................11
Alphacell v Woodward [1972]...............................................................................................................11
R. v Thornton [1991]..............................................................................................................................11
DPP v Newbury [1977]...........................................................................................................................11
R. v Turner [1971]..................................................................................................................................12
R. v M’naghten [1843]...........................................................................................................................12
R. v Gotts [1992]....................................................................................................................................12
R. v Dudley and Stephens [1884]...........................................................................................................13
R. v Clegg [1995]....................................................................................................................................13
, Weeks 1 + 2: origin and nature of English law
Fisher v Bell [1961]
Literal rule of interpretation
Facts:
A shopkeeper put a flick-knife in his window with a price tag on it. The Restriction of Offensive
Weapons Act 1959 made it a criminal offence to ‘offer’ such flick-knives for sale. Did the shopkeeper
‘offer’ the flick-knife for sale contrary to the statute?
Ratio decidendi:
No, the knife was not offered for sale, since the word ‘offer’ was not defined in the Restriction of
Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It therefore had to be given the meaning attributed to it in the ordinary law
of contract. Thus, the Court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation.
National Society v Scottish National Society [1915]
Literal rule of interpretation
Facts:
After his death, a Scotsman left his money to a beneficiary which he called the National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children, meaning the Scottish National Society.
Ratio decidendi:
The Court applied the literal rule and defined ‘the National Society’ as the British National Society.
R. v Allen [1972]
Golden rule of interpretation
Facts:
The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy (marrying twice). The statute states: ‘whosoever
being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of
an offence’. The defendant tried to argue that under a literal interpretation of the statute, it would be
impossible to commit the offence, since a second marriage will not be recognized in civil law and is
therefore invalid and technically not a marriage. This would make it possible to marry twice. However,
this was an absurd result.
Ratio decidendi:
The Court applied the golden rule and held that the word ‘marry’ in the statute should be interpreted as ‘to
go through a marriage ceremony’.
London Street Tramways v London County Council [1849]
Ratio decidendi:
The House of Lords (now: Supreme Court) is bound by its own previous decisions.
Except where the previous decision had been made per incuriam (through lack of care): when an important
case or statute was not brought to the attention of the Court when the previous decision was made.
The doctrine of binding precedent was later abolished by the House of Lords through the Announcement of 16-
7-1966.
